Have training standards "slipped"?

[Mako Mark]

I thought that was his "TASER fingers" pose, ready to whap the student

It is actually a swedish hand signal for "Djavle" which is a cuss word.

 

[markfm]

That's why I like SB -- learn new things every day!

 

[TheRedHead]

That's why I like SB -- learn new things every day!

Pfffft. DECO! No one takes me seriously because I'm a girl. DECO, DECO, DECO.

 

[Tigerman]

It is actually a swedish hand signal for "Djavle" which is a cuss word.

In this settings of course meaning "¨Djävulen är rett bakom dig med et kamera!!"
(The devil is right behind you with a camera!!)

 

[Mako Mark]

Pfffft. DECO! No one takes me seriously because I'm a girl. DECO, DECO, DECO.

lol, no, it is because you cant swear underwater in swedish..

Actually, I think he was trying to do a hang loose sign but messed it up.

 

[GDI]

Thank your for the effort that you clearly put into your post.

And as the old proverb goes, "a person is known by the company he keeps."

We grew up in difference places and with different associations. While I don't doubt your remembrances, I never felt any military influence in the diving classes I took, saw or was associated with. The influences were all either academic or recreation department.

There I have to disagree, the first national standards for training were those of the YMCA and NAUI. Those standards were put together not by ex-military divers but by a mix of academics, public sector recreation officials and YMCA types leavened with a few pioneer shop owners. There was little or no ex-military diver input to that. In 1966 PADI was founded. The way PADI built their initial rolls (instructor and bank) was to offer an Instructor card to anyone who would mail in $25.00 and some kind of "proof" that they had taught diving (that could be nothing more than a letter from the would-be instructor making the claim). A number of military divers (not always even military instructors) took advantage of this offer upon separation and PADI got a reputation as the most "hard-assed" agency out there. This was amplified by the fact that these instructors got no training or testing from PADI, they got a card and a few pages of minimum standards, which were essentially cribbed from the NAUI and YMCA standards that were already out there. So they taught what they knew, in the way that they had been taught.

Well I can say that there is some good points in what you write here but we need to go further back then this to see what I am referring to regarding military instruction. YES YMCA was the first agency to exist and instruct divers NAUI soon followed as did agencies such LA County, CMAS and (Up north) ACUC. At the biginning the only way to learn to dive was by mentoring of a individual as was the case in most commercial diver's education. The military developed a curiculum for teaching their divers. Considering that diving instruction for the military goes back into the later part of the 1800's especially for the Royal Navy. Many Commercial divers were pushing the boundaries of the time and a combination of the two lead to a more formalized curiculum. It was not until the early part of the 20th century that diving was even considered aproaching any sort of recreational past time interests. In fact we can go back even to the first use of diving bells where much of the discoveries of breath hold rules developed, painful for those who failed to release the air they were holding. But that is what Accident Analysis is all about.

Not until the early part of the 20th century did the advent of the aqualung cause the interest of diving to peak by the general populace. But where did they go to learn? AT the time given the state of the world the only active places to learn was from the military and those few commercial divers who mentored others. Along come the 50's and early 60's Yes agencies had formed. BUT where did the instructors come from and where did they get any sort of curiculum? The only formulized curiculum to provide them with a starting point was that developed by the military as used in the training of their divers. From this model the first origins of scuba training standards came. Adjustments were made and the agencys had a format to follow. It had to start somewhere...

Are you starting to get a feel for where the "don't exceed standards" mentality came from? When both training and new diver fatalities skyrocketed in number through the mid and late 1970s it became essential to reign in the Frankenstein monster that PADI had created. PADI successfully stoped their runaway train by creating two levels of instructor, a "scuba instructor" (which everyone already was) and a new "open water instructor" which you had to become to take students into open water. This weeded out the dead wood, the more militaristic butt-heads (and the pets that many instructors certified as a joke). It forced those without previous instructor training to actually get some and the fatality numbers dropped.

Correct PADI or any other agency was not formed overnight. Today the practice of getting instructors from other agencies to help form a new one or booster an existing one stills goes on pretty much in the same way. In many cases all a instructor needs to do is pay a fee and cross over, sometimes without any IE to attend. So changes were made, those who could not conform are weeded out. PADI didn't just change the way they did business they changed the face of diver instruction. The 60's and 70's potentially had a higher (to percentage of active divers) rate of fatalities, But the sport of diving was new and becoming a mainstream sport. The tough techniques as used by commercial and military instructors of the past were not suitable to the growing sport. It would not be until the 80's that a complete diversion from that teaching mentality would evolve. Much of the previous teaching techniques were discovered to be a contradiction to safe diving practices.

continued [/QUOTE]

 

[GDI]

I do not think it was market demand for "I-want-it-now programs" that changed things. I know, I was there, I was contracted by DEMA through NAUI to test an 18hr course back in the mid 1980s. Let me describe what w. as going on. During the 1980s there was on ongoing battle within PADI, NAUI and YMCA. Pecuniary Industry interests representing the manufacturers (most, not all ... but especially USD) and some powerful shop owners were arrayed against the very academic and recreation types who had founded the training community. These industry interests wanted shorter courses feeling that this was a more profitable approach. PADI at the time was controlled by John Cronin (the CEO of USD) who took advantage of the retraining of all PADI Instructors to rewrite history (always using just a grain of truth ... the proven way) and create the very prejudices and misconceptions that many suffer under today (e.g., old fashioned militaristic training, shorter training was to meet public demand, etc.).

My point exactly the market caused the push for shorter programs. The "I-Want -it-Now- Programs> Shop owners wanted clients to come into the shop. Buy, Buy, Buy. They wanted shorter courses, people were asking for it and the market responded. This carries on today with the newly introduced on-line courses. More flexibility, higher client/customer servicing. Come in get it done get diving.

Here I have to agree with you. It was common years ago and it is common today. While there have always been small groups of instructors that looked down on it, there seems to be a concentration of them on the SB, the reality is that it was (and is) rather standard amongst (shall we say) the non-cognisenti.

This group is out there and many learn that it should be better then wehat it appears. Perhaps they offset the others. Unfortunately opne can not fault one agency over another because of their size. I see divers all the time who do not know how to fin correctly to the conditions or poor in buoyancy control and problem solving. It matters not that they hold a YMCA, NAUI, SSI , SDI, ACUC or IDEA or CMAS card the faults are present in all. Say what they may it is not the other instructor who can't teach divers to correct standards it all instructors. Some will improve because of dissatisfaction and others just don't get it.

Here I must part company with you. The modular system has little or no acceptance within university and college diving programs, save those that are identical to shop classes (e.g., run as "activity classes" in PE Departments or contracted out to local dive shops.).

I have minor disagreement with your first sentence, but much of that difference sorts out when you combine enough "modules" into what I'd consider a reasonably complete class.

The modular system is the way PADI grew and others followed. OW followed by AOW then rescue etc etc. It was not a system that divers developed. It was a system adapted into the way diving was to become. My wife has a Masters Degree in Educational Leadership. Much of what they talked of in school was that wasy the humans learn best. A progressional system where one level builds on the next. That is modular. Universities started using this approach back in the 1950's. Diving educators, correction John Cronin and his team aka PADI took this approach and developed the continuous diver education method, The Way the World Learns to Dive. Many Agencies followed suit, reluctently for some but i the end it became the norm. Up North ACUC didn't develop their program until the mid seventies. They called the Star Developmental System. My OW course was before that and I must admit that I thought then divers were not getting it all up front. In the pool mind you the same skill sets and duration of training were to continue. To this day ACUC programs are considered some of the most demanding, longer courses out there. A point they take pride on and yet they are often by passed for shorter programs, Why is that?

Here we part company completely. I can guarantee you that the teaching methodologies that I learned in the late 1960s and early 1970s still work just fine and accommodate the changes in equipment and skills with no problem. Again I was there, I know the people, I was in the middle of the discussions ... I tell you that the "systematic progressive modules approach" was in reality a "new math" smoke and mirror show developed over many years by highly skilled and talented individuals such as Nick Icorn, Al Hornsby, and Harry Averill all of whose marching orders were to reduce dependence on a skilled instructor and under the guise of better" and more "modern" system for training divers develop shorter and cheaper courses. It was a brilliant ploy, other agencies were faced with the dilemma of having to meet the shortened, cheaper courses (note, shorter and cheaper, but with the course name) or be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage and left "behind" conducting the "old-fashioned" and "militaristic" programs that were, in fact, more the hallmark of the earlier PADI than the other agencies. Spurred by these concerns and industry interests that were fifth columns within their organization NAUI capitulated and so did YMCA.

(continued)

I think stated this before and again above. One can throw names out there but the truth is there were many people from around the world. In America it may have been the Al Hornsby and Nick Icorn's but there were others. Stated with no disrespect to any of the pioneers of diving from America. It was a global effect and I think PADI lead the way.

Today people jump on PADI and fail to see the over all systemic truth in what is considered a falling of standards. Not all divers are PADI divers yet the problems we discuss here, common to the body of all are often trageted against PADI. While NAUI and YMCA seem to escape the wrath we often forget that we see their diver students and those of SSI and SDI and others out there floundering about enjoying what they are doing- diving. No standards have adjusted, inpart to meet the demands of the market and the requests of the potential divers. This is not a uncommon concern many recreatation activities have seen the same results in their sports. The standards are there. Their interpretation by the instructors, the pressure by the scuba and recreatational markets and societies demand for faster and shorter have been the cause. This has just continued to be passed down as time goes on. For what it is worth the tech agencies may be facing the same delima soon enough.

 

[tedj01]

Signal option - 2 outs - baseball
- UT hook-em horns
also found following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corna

 

[daniel f aleman]

Show the back of the hand for the Corna, show the front of the hand for Hook 'em Horns - do not do the former in a Latin country...

 

[MikeFerrara]

Mikey mikey mike..

No, that fine example of strokery in the foreground is not me, both the divers in the second picture are candidates and the foreground guy was actually hovering.

You will be pleased to note that all divers concerned are wearing bp/w, admittedly not too well in the second picture, but at least they are trying.

I don't use the word stroke and while I would love to raz you about something, I really can't. As an instructor candidate, I sure did kneel during my IDC and so did everybody else including the CD. You guys look a whole lot better than we did.