NetDoc:
Lest I be misunderstood.
There are times I allow my students to touch the bottom. We do it ALL THE TIME in a cave: grab and pull! But for the most part my students are horizontal.
I think there are certainly times when it's appropriate to use the bottom in training...especially before they learn to stay off it. Either way, in the beginning they lack control and the bottom, like a line, can be used for control. I just think that before training is concluded, they should be diving off the bottom.
I'm afraid though that you give the wrong impression of how "pull and glide" should be used in cave diving. It isn't a propulsion technique that should be used often or in very many places. It is the least desireable of propulsion methods and needs to be emplyed with EXTREME care because it can be VERY damaging in many (most?) caves. I think divers probably do use it too often and it really shows in the condition of the caves.
With the increased popularity and commercialization of technical diving and cave diving, we are seeing the toll it takes on the caves too. We see hand and face prints (no kidding I've seen actual face inprints) in what used to be pristine untouched silt where there is absolutely NO reason for anyone to have had to get in the bottom. You can go into Peacock and see whole tunnels silted out near a jump. Broken formations where divers used "pull and glide" are evident even in caves where there is no reason to be touching anything. We see paint on the ceiling from tanks banging. We even see more intentional damage like graffiti than we used to.
I'm not aware of cave training standards being relaxed by any of the agencies but clearly those standards are being applied in a more relaxed fashion by somebody. So, if we look beyond the letter of the standards and consider the application of those standards I would say that the standard of cave training is slipping too.
Why? Because they are imitating ME. Why am I horizontal? Because that was BEATEN in to my skull during my ITC. If your buoyancy skills were not PERFECT you simply did not pass. If you allowed one of your "students" in the water overweighted, you simply did not pass. They critiqued how we weighted our students, they critiqued how we managed them on the surface and they critiqued how we managed them below. It was BRUTAL! But what can I say? MB was a part of this class and so was one of the members of the Board of Directors for NAUI.
My open water classes are routinely mistaken for advanced classes and once even as a cave class because of the attitude in the water. This took a mere 10-12 hours in a pool. Now, there are some students who require a LOT more attention and a lot more pool work. I believe in providing a HIGH standard and then making it ultra enjoyable for my students to get there. If you make it an underwater game, the learning curve accelerates phenomenally.
Sounds like a good class but, of course, PADI standards don't require anything even close to that. My own buoyancy control and trim wasn't even tested during my instructor examinations. You don't have to possess any such skills in order to become a PADI instructor. None of this will be "beaten into" any PADI instructopr candidate.
So, what don't I buy? That issues with trim and weighting post OW are the result of the agencies.
]When we can read the standards and see that it's lacking , how can we not attribute some percentage of it to those standards? The divers are diving up to the level that standards require. There just isn't any disconnect there.
Now, lets take a look at Jarrod Jablonski. He, like Mike & Thalassamania, did not like the skills he was seeing. So, rather than calling EVERYONE incompetent as these see fit to do, he just created his own agency. THAT took guts. You will never, ever hear him demeaning the industry to make GUE look better. HE JUST MAKES SURE THAT HIS STUDENTS "DO IT RIGHT"!
Actually if you read what Jarrod Jablonski has written or hear what he says, you'll see that he slams some of this pretty good.
Again, guts has little to do with any business decission I make regarding starting an agency. GUE is a good example for discussion though. According to their web site they have an entry level course now, but I haven't heard about any being taught. I think it was quite a few years ago that GUE anounced their intention to roll out an OW course but it still doesn't seem to be effectively in place. The bang for the buck just isn't there.
For my intended purpose, doing what I can from a consumer education perspective has a much greater effect than anything I could occomplish by starting another agency. I don't need to write my own standards and try to put instructors in place all over the world. All I want to do is make those who are interested aware of what is in the standards, how it can effect them and what some of their other choices might be.
Since "guts"impresses you so much...you think my position doesn't take some? The curve here is kind of interesting. Most people don't care about the subject one way or the other. A few, have a real head slapping moment when they here some of this and it really changes their diving. And then there are the few on the other end who attack pretty hard. You're one of those Pete. You won't discuss the letter of the standards or anything else of substance. You twist my words and apply various other methods of insult. I discuss what's in the standards and you look for ways to demean and insult and assign various unflattering motives that are a product of your own imagination...just read your last few posts. It's nothing new either, you've been doing it for years.
I could avoid that abuse just by not bucking the system.
No, the agencies provide a great service to our industry.
Yes, the agencies provide a great service to the INDUSTRY! Maybe you're starting to get it. Unfortunately they provide a great dis-service to MANY divers (consumers)
If it weren't for them AND their marketing only people like Thalassamania would be diving.
People like Thalassamania? What kind of people are those?
Maybe that's how he and Mike want it?
There you go again. What I want isn't really at issue. What is at issue is the content of the standards and their significance. LOL but no that's not what I want. I want divers to understand what the standards say and how it can effect them so that they are better able to make an informed choice. On the other hand there are those who would prefer that the content of the standards and the significance of the standards be kept away from the consumer. For some reason they want to downplay the importance of those standards. They place the agency above reproach and refuse to hold them responsible for their standards and the effect those standards have on how divers dive. The standards are at the very core of training. They effect everything from how much divers enjoy diving, to safety to the environment.
If you are going to defend the agency and the standards, why can't you do it based on the actual content of the standards and performance?
