Has SCUBA training gone too far?

[MXGratefulDiver]

Rather than offer all these "specialty" courses (most of which barely prepare you for that specialty), I'd like to see the agencies spend more time actually training OW students to be better divers. My OW class in the 60s was THREE WEEKS long and pretty much covered everything through today's Rescue Diver. Once they receive better training, I have no problem with such specialty courses since they are elective.

My YMCA OW class, in 2001, was four weeks long ... and focused a lot of that time on watermanship skills that aren't covered at all today. I had to pass a swim test before even beginning the class, and a more difficult swim test at the end to qualify for certification. We did scuba ditch and recovery ... a skill that isn't covered in the NAUI curriculum until Divemaster. We learned three different kinds of kicks ... although, oddly, frog kick not only wasn't covered, it was actively discouraged. We did a LOT of skin diving, both in the pool and OW. A lot of emphasis in the class was on skills that involved demonstrating comfort in the water, and didn't involve scuba equipment at all. We covered a lot of what's currently covered in rescue, including unconscious diver recovery ... which is still part of the NAUI OW curriculum.

But we still did our skills on our knees. And although I think I had a very good class, I still came out of it with relatively poor buoyancy control skills ... not so much in the pool, but in OW with all that neoprene, gloves, hood, and nearly 40 lbs of weightbelt. I learned buoyancy control primarily through diving ... and hooking up with mentors who showed me a different way of diving (those dreaded DIR people).

I think the biggest reason why people take specialty classes is because they realize they have a lot yet to learn, and there is no other path available to them to learn it. They go into these classes believing that they'll improve their skills ... and in some cases they do, but in a lot of cases, they come out of them disappointed. And that doesn't just apply to specialty classes ... we frequently here on ScubaBoard hear people coming out of AOW complaining that they didn't learn anything. But that's more an indictment of the instructor than the curriculum ... because I can point to instructors from every agency out there who won't allow you out of their class without teaching you something important ... even if the class is one of those specialty classes that everyone likes to brush off as frivolous.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[tursiops]

Rather than offer all these "specialty" courses (most of which barely prepare you for that specialty), I'd like to see the agencies spend more time actually training OW students to be better divers. My OW class in the 60s was THREE WEEKS long and pretty much covered everything through today's Rescue Diver. Once they receive better training, I have no problem with such specialty courses since they are elective.

Nostalgia is just not what it used to be.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I'm going to limit my comments to just your four Scuba Diver levels ...

Scuba Diver Level 1: OW + Surface Rescues + Deep + Night + Advanced Navigation + DSMB + Primary Reel
Scuba Diver Level 2: Intro to Tech + Drysuit + Nitrox + Doubles + U/W Rescues + Dive Leadership (certified assistant/class & pool instructor)
Scuba Diver Level 3: Divemaster (also must be certified lifeguard & EMT with 100 dives)
Scuba Diver Level 4: Open Water Instructor (must have 500 dives)

General Comment - if your goal is to accomodate divers on a world-wide level, I think it's way too rigid. There needs to be some way to "mix and match" class objectives to fit the environment in which the class is being taught. For example, in my area, drysuit is often taught at the OW level. In some parts of the world, that's not even optional if you want to dive there. In others, divers will never even see a drysuit, much less need to learn how to dive in one.

Scuba Diver Level 1 - why would a scuba diver at this level need to know how to use a primary reel? If it's for Search & Recoveries, then where in your curriculum would you teach those skills? I can't think of another practical application for a primary reel until the diver is beginning to learn how to dive in a wreck or cave environment.

Scuba Diver Level 2 - why would most of the world's divers ever need to learn how to dive doubles ... or a drysuit?

Scuba Diver Level 3 - why would these divers need to be certified as an EMT? From a practical perspective, the training is expensive, and the equipment needed to practice the craft even more so.

Scuba Diver Level 4 - while I think that the bar for OW instructors today is way too low, I'd be hesitant to put a specific number of dives on that criteria ... it just encourages "padding". I'd prefer to see a demonstration of skills much higher than today, a written exam that tests a person's comprehension of the subjects they'll be teaching, and an oral exam that tests the person's ability to not just regurgitate the material in the book, but explain it in their own words, and in more detail than is in the book. Teaching at the OW level invariably means fielding questions from students who want to understand WHY something is being taught. If an instructor cannot credibly articulate an answer to those questions, they shouldn't be teaching.

The remaining 12 levels in your training tree are going to accommodate only those who decide to go into overhead diving. From a business perspective, while I think those classes have merit, I don't think that it's practical to devote 75% of your training curriculum to focus on the needs of maybe 1 or 2 percent of your potential target market ... unless the goal of your program is specifically train people to dive in overheads.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[iamrushman]

good read...........if the classes are offered they will be taken...or not..your choice.

 

[Steve_C]

Scuba Diver Level 1 - why would a scuba diver at this level need to know how to use a primary reel? If it's for Search & Recoveries, then where in your curriculum would you teach those skills? I can't think of another practical application for a primary reel until the diver is beginning to learn how to dive in a wreck or cave environment.

Usually you and I agree but I will disagree on this one. I will never dive a cave. I do not do real wreck penetration. However, I carry a reel with me on all NC coastal dives. You splash in 80-100 ft of water and find out that there is 10 ft or less of viz on a broken up ledge or debri field of a wreck. You run a reel. Last time I tried to navigate a ledge in 5 ft of viz without one I wound up doing an open water ascent. (My error, I assumed that since I had dove it before it was easy to dive again. Did not take into account that anchor came down on the other side of a rock. Lesson learned.)

Reel is also used if you need to shoot an SMB for said open water ascents.

Also use it for drift dives for shooting SMB and doing a drifting safety stop.

Not saying it should be in the very first classes but should be a skill by the time they finish AOW.

In fact we have some dives where reel and SMB are required like to fossil ledge.

 

[TSandM]

If there is one thing I've learned from working with classes for four years, it's that students are different. To some, buoyancy control comes easily (I envy those people!) and for others, the three week class we run is just not enough to get anywhere near solid. Some students are adventurous and leap into new experiences and situations, and other are more cautious or even timid.

Specialty classes can offer focused training on weak spots, or provide the less confident diver with an opportunity to explore a new type of diving (night, low vis, boat, drift) with some specific guidelines and the comfort of an experienced companion.

If you go through the PADI standard for specialties, most of them are really pretty good. A LOT of stuff CAN be taught in those classes, and usually isn't. A specialty taught to the max is probably going to be a darned good class. One taught to the minimums will be like all other classes taught that way, and not worth much.

 

[AfterDark]

Usually you and I agree but I will disagree on this one. I will never dive a cave. I do not do real wreck penetration. However, I carry a reel with me on all NC coastal dives. You splash in 80-100 ft of water and find out that there is 10 ft or less of viz on a broken up ledge or debri field of a wreck. You run a reel. Last time I tried to navigate a ledge in 5 ft of viz without one I wound up doing an open water ascent. (My error, I assumed that since I had dove it before it was easy to dive again. Did not take into account that anchor came down on the other side of a rock. Lesson learned.)

Reel is also used if you need to shoot an SMB for said open water ascents.

Also use it for drift dives for shooting SMB and doing a drifting safety stop.

Not saying it should be in the very first classes but should be a skill by the time they finish AOW.

In fact we have some dives where reel and SMB are required like to fossil ledge.

Last year in NC one of the divers on our boat surfaced 200yds from the boat with his SMB deployed held in place by his reel line tied off to a rock on the bottom. He lost 100'+ of line but got back to the boat after a rope was deployed to pull himself in with.

 

[boulderjohn]

Does PADI recognize it? Do they get their cut?

I rest my case.

And you rested your case before hearing the defense.

With Distinctive Specialty, the only money PADI makes is the processing fee for sending out the C-card. If the student takes the class and decides a card is not needed, then PADI does not get a dime. I teach two distinctive specialties, and PADI does not get anything for either unless the student asks for a card, and the processing fee for the card is a mere pittance.

So why would an instructor or shop offer a recognized Distinctive Specialty rather than just teach the course to interested students? There is some incentive value for a minority of students for the card, but that is not the main reason. The main reason is liability. If I teach a class that I created and something happens to a student, I might get sued. If I get sued, the onus will be on me to prove that the content and methods of my instruction were reasonably safe. If I am instead teaching an approved Distinctive Specialty, I can simply say that a major scuba agency has reviewed the content and standards of my course and determined that they are proper enough to be given their approval. Even if the suit is successful, my instructor liability insurance will cover me.

In summary, PADI gets little to nothing for most of these specialties (other than the ones for which they sell student texts), and by approving the specialties, they provide a level of safety to their instructors who teach the courses.

 

[Peter Guy]

A few general comments:

a. Agencies do NOT teach students, INSTRUCTORS teach students -- and yes that is an important distinction because IF a course (specialty or whatever) was useless to you, the student, the fault (such as it might be) lies with the INSTRUCTOR AND YOU. Either the instructor didn't do her job of making the class relevant and informative OR you didn't do your job of demanding/learning (or more likely both).

b. As Karibelle implied, damned if you do, damned if you don't, regarding training. Hey, EVERY diver I've ever met needs more training for X,Y or Z. As that diver, you have three ways of getting that training -- a formal class, an informal class (i.e. a mentor) or trial and error. I've tried all three in various activities and guess what, IN GENERAL the formal class has been the most efficient way of learning something.

With a formal class, at the very least one knows that someone has actually thought about the scope of what needs to be taught and has provided some type of roadmap as to how to teach it. With the informal class (mentor), you'll never know how much thought has gone into the how and what to teach. And, of course, with the trial and error, you'll NEVER know either nor will you know if your solution is close to being the best one available.

c. As I've written before on two specific (and criticized specialties) -- Boat and UW Photography -- I have cards from both and my Boat specialty was an absolute farce (and no, I didn't care) whereas the UW Photography class was very good (and I was a decent land photographer with a fair amount of education on the subject). IF the Boat instructor had actually attempted to teach anything, including a substantial part of PADI's course outline, it would have/could have been a very good class -- he didn't and I didn't care. My UW Photography instructor DID do that and thus it was a very good course in which I learned a lot about the differences between shooting above water and below.

IN SUM, education is really all about the instructor!

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Usually you and I agree but I will disagree on this one. I will never dive a cave. I do not do real wreck penetration. However, I carry a reel with me on all NC coastal dives. You splash in 80-100 ft of water and find out that there is 10 ft or less of viz on a broken up ledge or debri field of a wreck. You run a reel. Last time I tried to navigate a ledge in 5 ft of viz without one I wound up doing an open water ascent. (My error, I assumed that since I had dove it before it was easy to dive again. Did not take into account that anchor came down on the other side of a rock. Lesson learned.)

Reel is also used if you need to shoot an SMB for said open water ascents.

Also use it for drift dives for shooting SMB and doing a drifting safety stop.

Not saying it should be in the very first classes but should be a skill by the time they finish AOW.

In fact we have some dives where reel and SMB are required like to fossil ledge.

I don't think we're disagreeing at all ... as I said, there needs to be some flexibility for learning skills that are relevent to the environment you're diving in. I'm not questioning whether use of a primary reel should be taught, but at what level, and for what purpose. Many of the conditions you mention do not exist in much of the diving world. And in our area, most divers use spools, not reels, to deploy an SMB. There are pros and cons to doing it either way, but unless you're deploying from depths well below recreational limits, a spool is generally easier to use.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)