Dumbing down of scuba certification courses (PADI) - what have we missed?

[Thalassamania]

... I'm refering to the pushups, chinups and situps that was on the Y cards in the 60's. Ask one of your elders about it.

Back in the 1960s the Y was still pushing, "Muscular Christianity," as part of all their programs and calisthenics were an integral part of their approach to salvation.

That sounds like a challenge that I'd love to take you up on, if we could figure out how to work out the logistics.

It's a sucker bet ... you don't want to take it, you'd lose, badly. But you may keep your delusion, I'll just make the claim and leave it at that, if you don't trust my estimate of the situation, I really don't care, so be it.

If thats true, kudos to you.

No kudos deserved, that's what I expect of a competent instructo,r teaching a well designed program, to people who are comfortable in the water. Getting "the look" is (in my book) an sign of failure that should spur one to reevaluate what is being taught and how its being taught.

Every diver should be able to swim. How well and how far is the subjective part. However, doing pushups, situps and chinups, like the Y used to require in the 60"s is too militaristic.

Covered earlier. You keep harping on the Y in the 60s, that's almost meaningless, despite being the first national program, since it was never mainstream or particularly influential.

What is the group if not a covey of individuals. Those individuals are in turn, governed by the people paying for what they percieve as beneficial to them. Titles or not, people want to be percieved as being top of the heap. The title of AOW+ was a poor one and when people just had to do AOW to advance it affected the entire scheme of that course.

So I'd rather be honest with people about their capabilities. I can live with that.

Who determines what those risks are? It seems to me that agencies and Instructors do that.

Actuaries determine the risk.

You took your shot at making NAUI better. During that time PADI grew disproportionately to what was happening at NAUI. That should have given you a clue as to the direction things were going then. Leapfrog is right, change comes from the inside and you had a great chance to make NAUI the best mousetrap around.

It wasn't my job to make NAUI better, I was an academic with an extensive background in diving (including a C.V that included thirty-odd publications in the area of diving standards and about the same number in the areas of diver training and diving safety) who was contracted by NAUI to accomplish a defined task, design a quality training program and prepare standards to support that program.

Up to here we agree, why do you say my observations don't jibe with yours?

When you reduce the standards that used to apply to AOW (which were about the same as another agency's AOW) to those of another agency's "Sport Diver" course (one course down), or when you cut the required hours from 40 to 18, or when you excise rescue from your course ... when you do any of these things, then I'd say that you cut standards. PADI did all those things, and more. To hide behind a "serious quality control process to either retrain or expel instructors who do not strictly adhere to them." (them being the now reduced standards) begs the question.

I understand. Thanks for sharing this. So what could be done to introduce a similar concept today for PADI and/or other agencies?

Can't be done. We have turned Instructor training into an additional profit center and set up a system of many, many individuals who now feed at the instructor development table.

....there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the younger skiers are at most risk....

Younger is not necessarily least trained or experienced. At ten I was considered an "expert" skier, that said nothing about my judgment, just my physical ability. I did some crazy stuff, and if I'd been seriously injured or killed, to chalk me up as a new skier would have done great violence to the facts.

I think you just entered dangerous territory with that statement..... maybe you would like to qualify it? Maybe the recreational community learned from both the scientific community and the Navy? Can you prove that statement?

That's simply history and fact. Look up Bob Dill, Jim Stewart, Connie Limbaugh, Hugh Bradner, Andy Rechnitzer. These were the pioneers, they taught Navy personnel from Pt. Loma how to teach OC.

Again, I think you should qualify the statement. It's pretty offensive to people who have served, come out of the Navy and gone up the recreational tree the hard way.

If you find the truth offensive its only because you've lived too long with the fables. As a point of information, this does not apply to anyone after the late 1970s.

It's precisely because we know our origins that we make a point of it. It is a change and a big one.

Its a minor change of a faction of a percent of instructors, most of whom were disenfranchised by PADI when when they were demoted to pool-only instructors (and thus significantly reduced the number of training fatalities).

We are teaching recreational diving, in other words for people to have a good time. Some instructors would still love to have ultra fit, mega motivated super students.

Everyone would love that, but stop making assumptions, most all of my teaching has been scientists, sure it makes the math and physics easy ... but they've been exactly ultra-fit ... more like nerds than NUMA agents.

But actually we get our pleasures seeing people who may be frail or frightened conquor their fears and live their dreams. Don't try and pull the wool over our eyes. Twenty years ago a number of agencies still mandated swimming down to 60 feet, opening the valve, sticking the reg in your mouth, doffing the kit and ascending.

Please list one agency that mandated such a skill in 1986, or at any other time for that matter.

They also mandated free ascents. Both of these are straight out of the military manuals. Of course, if you haven't been there, maybe you don't know.

Actually free ascents are straight out of the science manual. And we still teach and perform them, though not as the primary problem solution that they once were. Might I remind you that putting a regulator in your mouth and breathing, not holding your breath and clearing your mask are also including in the U.S. Navy Diving Manual?

It's easy to see how you make your sales then.

I don't make any sales. I don't believe in Instructors selling gear.

Are you sure? I think quite a few posters on this thread were there...........

There are a few who make that claim, very few.

Ripping into a new diver because he chose to train with PADI? Shame on you.

He starts off saying he's not read the thread and then he goes on to discuss things he knows little about. It's not his PADI background that I was questioning, just the value of his observations.

Since when is UCLA an authority on the number of practice sessions needed for air sharing?

Throughout the 1970s, 80s and 90s, when the Chairman of the Department of Keneseology, Dr. Glen Egstrom, had an interest in researching diving questions. If your going to take part in this conversation you need to be familiar with both the actual history and the literature of the field.

With all due respect, if you had any respect for the posters opinion, you wouldn't need to say, "with all due respect".

Often true.

ALTHOUGH YOU MAY BE UNDERESTIMATING SOME INSTRUCTORS AND SOME STUDENTS.

That's always the case with any generality, there are always exceptions.

I'm sorry but I don't understand these two sentences, could you explain them please?

What I said was:

"The quasi-military training thing is a bogeyman that many instructors hide behind. It's the classic bad-mouthing of a product that they are not able to provide."
​

That seems rather clear to me.

 

[Walter]

Some students would have problems accomplishing certain skills slowly and overtly. That's what a Divemaster should be able to do, with ease.

First, I'd like to point out that you've changed your statement from one that claims such skill levels are beyond all beginning divers to some might have trouble with the skills. When the student is having trouble doing skills with ease it means either the instructor has not presented it correctly or the student needs more practice with the skill.

A person who starts dive training can't grasp skills at the same level as a Divemaster either.

What I said was:
"The quasi-military training thing is a bogeyman that many instructors hide behind. It's the classic bad-mouthing of a product that they are not able to provide."

That seems rather clear to me.

Seems pretty clear to me as well, but I'll translate for those that are having difficulty.

The quasi-military training thing is a bogeyman that many instructors hide behind. = Many instructors have classes that don't measure up to the higher standard. To avoid the appearance of having an inferior product they tell untrue stories about the higher standard.

It's the classic bad-mouthing of a product that they are not able to provide. = When people are not skilled enough to produce a high quality product, they sometimes try to make the high quality product look bad.

 

[leapfrog]

Back in the 1960s the Y was still pushing, "Muscular Christianity," as part of all their programs and calisthenics were an integral part of their approach to salvation.

So yes, Sweatfrog is right there were pushups, chinups and situps on the Y cards in the 60's.

It's a sucker bet ... you don't want to take it, you'd lose, badly. But you may keep your delusion, I'll just make the claim and leave it at that, if you don't trust my estimate of the situation, I really don't care, so be it.

I'm very disappointed. I would have thought you good get over the logistics to take Sweatfrog up on it. Afraid you might lose?

Covered earlier. You keep harping on the Y in the 60s, that's almost meaningless, despite being the first national program, since it was never mainstream or particularly influential.

. Exactly. PADI has the mainstream and most influential program worldwide.

Actuaries determine the risk.......

.....based on the data they glean from the agencies and the instructors. Or are you suggesting that there are actuaries finning around secretly underwater to look at "the risks"?

It wasn't my job to make NAUI better, I was an academic with an extensive background in diving (including a C.V that included thirty-odd publications in the area of diving standards and about the same number in the areas of diver training and diving safety) who was contracted by NAUI to accomplish a defined task, design a quality training program and prepare standards to support that program.

NAUI hired you to do all that but you say it wasn't your job to make NAUI better? So designing a quality training program and standards for an organization that hires you isn't "working to make it better"?

When you reduce the standards that used to apply to AOW (which were about the same as another agency's AOW) to those of another agency's "Sport Diver" course (one course down), or when you cut the required hours from 40 to 18, or when you excise rescue from your course ... when you do any of these things, then I'd say that you cut standards.

I'd say you have designed a modular program to accomodate people's finances and time constraints.

PADI did all those things, and more.

TRUE. They brought safe, enjoyable, recreational scuba diving to millions of people.

To hide behind....

Do I look as though I am hiding?

.....a "serious quality control process to either retrain or expel instructors who do not strictly adhere to them." (them being the now reduced standards) begs the question.

Not at all. It means there are standards and they are enforced. The standards aren't reduced, they are modularised.

Can't be done. We have turned Instructor training into an additional profit center and set up a system of many, many individuals who now feed at the instructor development table.

. It can be done and I'm sure it will be done. The reason too many people decide to go Pro is that there isn't an adequate non pro course for them covering the theoretical aspects of recreational diving.

Younger is not necessarily least trained or experienced.

Not necessarily but frequently it does mean just that.

That's simply history and fact. Look up Bob Dill, Jim Stewart, Connie Limbaugh, Hugh Bradner, Andy Rechnitzer. These were the pioneers, they taught Navy personnel from Pt. Loma how to teach OC.

Fascinating but irrelevant. These scientists started with knowledge that they had acquired from, amongst others, the Navy. I think what is going on today at SSC San Diego is a much clearer illustration of the collaboration of scientists to the Navy but it's off topic.

As a point of information, this does not apply to anyone after the late 1970s.

I'm mid 80s...............

Please list one agency that mandated such a skill in 1986, or at any other time for that matter.

YMCA and NAUI. Ask, Walter. He taught it.

Actually free ascents are straight out of the science manual.....

....and who might have to use one in the real world? Perhaps the crew of a boomer or a combat swimmer or does the Navy train it's people to do that to harrass them?

And we still teach and perform them, though not as the primary problem solution that they once were.

Good. I'm all for free ascents but not for OW/AOW students.

Might I remind you that putting a regulator in your mouth and breathing, not holding your breath and clearing your mask are also including in the U.S. Navy Diving Manual?

Thanks for the reminder..... I appreciate the gesture.

I don't make any sales. I don't believe in Instructors selling gear.

. Diving is a business. A good instructor can sell gear to his students if it's the right gear. Who better than your instructor to make sure a student buys what's best for them?

He starts off saying he's not read the thread and then he goes on to discuss things he knows little about. It's not his PADI background that I was questioning, just the value of his observations.

All the guy said was that he enjoyed his training. I don't think either the tone of your reply or suggesting that UCLA is the world expert on AAS use was appropriate.

Throughout the 1970s, 80s and 90s, when the Chairman of the Department of Keneseology, Dr. Glen Egstrom, had an interest in researching diving questions. If your going to take part in this conversation you need to be familiar with both the actual history and the literature of the field.

I still don't buy that research at UCLA is fundamental to using AAS in an emergency nor was it relevant to the post from FlyinV about having enjoyed his training.

What I said was:

"The quasi-military training thing is a bogeyman that many instructors hide behind. It's the classic bad-mouthing of a product that they are not able to provide."​

Are you saying that this applies to Sweatfrog or me?​

 

[Walter]

Twenty years ago a number of agencies still mandated swimming down to 60 feet, opening the valve, sticking the reg in your mouth, doffing the kit and ascending.

Please list one agency that mandated such a skill in 1986, or at any other time for that matter.

YMCA and NAUI. Ask, Walter. He taught it.

I've never taught NAUI, but Thall does. I was teaching YMCA in 1986 and it had no such requirement.

 

[GrandpaScuba]

I learned to dive in 1980, right around the time that the industry was starting to move away from the quasi-military style of training. There was great hew-and-cry and gnashing of teeth over this change and I find it amusing that nearly 30 years later, the argument continues.

Over these, nearly, 30 years I've met and dived with many divers (probably in the 1000s), and while there are always divers that make you shake your head and wonder if they know what they are doing, by far the vast majority of the divers I've met have been perfectly competant divers. I think that if there were some systemic problem with the training programs, this would not be true.

I also find it amusing to hear folks still talking about the high drop-out rate in diving. Because, I can remember that same conversation happening back in 1980. Diving has always had a high drop-out rate. It's an expensive sport where you put a lot of work into a relatively short-duration experience. And, folks find out it's not really as glamorous as the James Bond films and Sea Hunt make it out to be.

 

[Thalassamania]

So yes, Sweatfrog is right there were pushups, chinups and situps on the Y cards in the 60's.

No, SF was attempting to paint an entire community on the basis of one rather marginal niche organization, during one very short period of that organizations infancy. To make the sweeping claims that he does based on the single exception to the rule requires an overweening belief in personal correctness combined with an overwhelming lack of knowledge concerning the true situation, or a cavalier disregard for truth.

I'm very disappointed. I would have thought you good get over the logistics to take Sweatfrog up on it. Afraid you might lose?

No, I just thought about it and the reality is that I know precisely what is described by the PADI standards and I know precisely what the divers I train do (knowledge that you and SF lack) and everyone who matters to me knows that also. There is simply no reason to waste time and energy stomping on some poor soul who doesn't know any better, some might even consider it cruel.

.....based on the data they glean from the agencies and the instructors. Or are you suggesting that there are actuaries finning around secretly underwater to look at "the risks"?

Just how much experience do you have wih insurance risk assessment and rate negotiation?

NAUI hired you to do all that but you say it wasn't your job to make NAUI better? So designing a quality training program and standards for an organization that hires you isn't "working to make it better"?

That's not what I said, you're playing with words that go off on tangents, let's not waste every ones time with such foolish sophistry.

I'd say you have designed a modular program to accomodate people's finances and time constraints.
...
TRUE.
...
They brought safe, enjoyable, recreational scuba diving to millions of people.

You are prevaricating and ignoring the statement that is on the table:

When you reduce the standards that used to apply to AOW (which were about the same as another agency's AOW) to those of another agency's "Sport Diver" course (one course down), or when you cut the required hours from 40 to 18, or when you excise rescue from your course ... when you do any of these things, then I'd say that you cut standards.
​

Oh, by the way ... we done this one before, but since you insist on continuing to mislead people, diving is NOT SAFE! Safe means, "without risk." Diving is not without risk. It would be reasonable to claim that PADI strove to minimize the risk of diving for millions of people, but brought safe diving ... no. That's just the kind of claim that is typical of PADI and that negates new divers' ability to give true informed consent.

Do I look as though I am hiding?

In the metaphorical sense that was meant yes, you appear to be hiding.

Not at all. It means there are standards and they are enforced. The standards aren't reduced, they are modularised.

Hmm ... "modularized," ... is that a new PADI word like "mastery" that doesn't carry with it same meaning that all dictionaries use? Stop hiding behind weird obfustication and deal with the statement that is on the table (I repeat):

When you reduce the standards that used to apply to AOW (which were about the same as another agency's AOW) to those of another agency's "Sport Diver" course (one course down), or when you cut the required hours from 40 to 18, or when you excise rescue from your course ... when you do any of these things, then I'd say that you cut standards.
​

Is the entry-level program less that it was? Yes, it is less. When something is "less" may it be properly described as "reduced?"

Fascinating but irrelevant. These scientists started with knowledge that they had acquired from, amongst others, the Navy. I think what is going on today at SSC San Diego is a much clearer illustration of the collaboration of scientists to the Navy but it's off topic.

It's not off topic, those are the names that you need to research to cut through the ego and the BS and find out what really went down. Here's a headstart: The first OC training program conducted in the US was convened at Scripps by Connie Limbaugh. Staff included Bob Dill and Andy Rechnitzer. Alex Brylske picks up the story:

The aqualung was brought to America in 1948 by a Navy UDT commander, Doug Fane. The next year, Cousteau sent six units to Rene Bussoz, a sporting goods dealer who owned a store near the UCLA campus. Seeing the potential value of scuba for scientific investigation, a young graduate student by the name of Conrad Limbaugh convinced his professor to buy two of the units. Soon after, Limbaugh, along with an associate, Andy Rechnitzer, began diving throughout the Southern California coast. In 1950, the two enrolled in the Ph.D. program at San Diego's Scripps Institute of Oceanography. There they informally tutored a few of their colleagues in the use of scuba until 1952, when a student at another California university died in a diving accident.
​

Alarmed by the death, the Scripps administration asked Limbaugh to create a training course and manual. The result was the first formal scuba program and textbook in America. In 1954, also concerned over the potential hazards of this increasingly popular sport, the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation sent three representatives Al Tillman, Bev Morgan and Ramsey Parks to San Diego to take Limbaugh's course. This became the first scuba instructor program ever conducted in America. Returning to Los Angeles, the trio formed the nation's first recreational scuba training program. By 1955, of the total worldwide sales of aqualungs (some 25,000 units), 80 percent were purchased in California. The United States clearly had the largest population of recreational divers on the face of the planet.
​

I'm mid 80s...............

I guess that accounts for your lack of background concerning the history of diving and diver training. I can recommend some readings that might help you.

YMCA and NAUI. Ask, Walter. He taught it.

Well Walter says that it never existed in Y and I'm telling you that it never existed in NAUI, so the ball is in your court. Please quote the standard that contains the alleged requirement or admit that, with respect to this issue, SF is ... shall we say ... wrong?

... and who might have to use one in the real world? Perhaps the crew of a boomer or a combat swimmer or does the Navy train it's people to do that to harrass them?

That's a separate topic that has been well covered in the past, try using the search function.

Good. I'm all for free ascents but not for OW/AOW students.

We do Free Ascents and even Buoyant Ascents with all of our students and have done so since 1952 without a single incident.

Thanks for the reminder..... I appreciate the gesture. .

It's not a reminder; it's an example of fractured logic.
Let's recap:

You said:

They also mandated free ascents. Both of these are straight out of the military manuals. Of course, if you haven't been there, maybe you don't know.
​

And I replied:

Actually free ascents are straight out of the science manual. And we still teach and perform them, though not as the primary problem solution that they once were. Might I remind you that putting a regulator in your mouth and breathing, not holding your breath and clearing your mask are also including in the U.S. Navy Diving Manual?
​

Not to remind you of anything, but to illustrate your faulty syllogism.

Diving is a business. A good instructor can sell gear to his students if it's the right gear. Who better than your instructor to make sure a student buys what's best for them?

I feel that it is a conflict of interest for instructors to sell gear to students. An instructor's duty should be to the student not the dive shop. I suspect that is one of the reasons that there are so many crappy poodle vests out there, and why most instructors make less that fast food workers.

All the guy said was that he enjoyed his training.

No, that was not all that he said. He went into a lot of detail and I responded in similar detail. I wish there was a way to have done it more sweetly, but there really wasn't. I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but unfortunatley that sometimes happens when a nubie jumps into the middle of a conversation that he does not really understand.

I still don't buy that research at UCLA is fundamental to using AAS in an emergency nor was it relevant to the post from FlyinV about having enjoyed his training.

Glen happens to be the world expert on the question. Care to vie for that title. Care to post your C.V. (please incude all journal publications) so that we can all decide who has a better claim on the title?

The relevence to FlyinV's post was to suggest that the expert in the field suggested that his training was inadequate to the task, even though FlyinV greatly enjoyed it.

Are you saying that this applies to Sweatfrog or me?

That's for each of you to decide on your own, if the shoe fits ... wear it, if it doesn't, pass it by. I will however say that SF is wrong in his statement that:

I could have gotten a NAUI card at the same time, with the same amount of paperwork.

That is simply not true. With the exception of the initial 300 odd associates of the agency, NAUI has never issued, or offered, a leadership credential on any basis other than by formal testing. It simply has never happened. Never!

 

[FlyinV]

noob here interrupting again but you guys seem to know a lot.

Has there been an increase in diver accidents in regards to the new training ideas in use today?
I also wonder if there is an increase or decrease of diving students since the training has become less intensive?

 

[Walter]

Has there been an increase in diver accidents in regards to the new training ideas in use today?

No one knows. We have no valid stats on numbers of divers or dives/year. We should also keep in mind that today lots of charters mandate guided dives, so lots of divers are never diving on their own.

I also wonder if there is an increase or decrease of diving students since the training has become less intensive?

A large increase.

 

[Web Monkey]

noob here interrupting again but you guys seem to know a lot.
Has there been an increase in diver accidents in regards to the new training ideas in use today?
I also wonder if there is an increase or decrease of diving students since the training has become less intensive?

There's no way to know.

There are tons more people being trained, however it's unknown how many of them dive again or how often or under what conditions, which makes deriving meaningful stats pretty much impossible.

Just for an example, I dive in the Caribbean from a cruise ship once a year (trip with buddies and non-diving wives). There hasn't been a single year where someone who just ran though the 2-day SCUBA class didn't get injured, scared or have a moderately close brush with death. I'm virtually certain that these people will never dive again, which means that they'll never get hurt diving again.

If you want to get a good feel for it, the next time you're at a party, ask everybody "Who has ever been SCUBA diving?". You'll probably see maybe 20% of the hands go up. Then ask "Who's been diving this year?". If you see one hand, you'll be lucky.

Terry

 

[Thalassamania]

Fatalities and bends cases are the only things that get reported, sometimes. There is not often any record of a panic ascent following a flooded mask that convinces someone to never dive again.