History of Diver Training

[DCBC]

...I don't think you realise how much damage you do to scubaboard by implying to newbies who might happen across your posts in nearly everything you write :

- you suck
- your instructor sucks
- your agency sucks
- the industry sucks

and doing that with what I believe to be a cynical and negative undertone.

Rob, people hear what they want to hear. I have:

- NEVER said that you (or anyone else) suck!
- NEVER said that your instructor sucks!
- said that the agency standards are lower than they once were (they are)
- stated that I disagree with the ability to give a c-card to a non-swimmer
- disagreed with the policies of dive resorts to take inexperienced divers past the maximum depth limits of recreational diving as a matter of routine.

I see that misinterpretation is a major problem. I guess I don't like people putting words in my mouth; especially words that I haven't said.

I know you're not the only one, but I see you as the ring-leader and I personally believe that while you *could* be a fantastic asset to the board, you are, at this time, being very unhelpful to the target audience. It frustrates me to the point that I lose my temper with you and that's something that I end up regretting every time we butt heads.

This is not a conspiracy Rob. We each have opinions. You may not agree with mine, nor I yours. That doesn't mean insults are in-order.

I do believe that it would take very little for you to change your message from (to pick an example) saying something to the effect, "your instructor doesn't know what he's doing" to saying something like, "I believe it would be best if you learned ABC in this-or-that way." The first way, denigrates and insults people and the second teaches them something. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a POV (I have many myself) but sometimes the delivery does more harm than good. I guess when we talk about POV warriors, we're really talking more about delivery than anything else.

Again misquotes; I've never said "your instructor doesn't know what he's doing." Don't you see that it's wrong to put words into someone's mouth that they didn't say? Wouldn't you feel slighted if I started making false claims about what I thought you said?

Either provide a direct quote of mine in any thread where I've used these words, or stop spreading around statements that were never spoken. Perhaps this is what you believe, but these are not my words. People hear what they want to hear. I can't do anything about that.

However, through many of these arguments, it would appear that there is nothing anyone can do to get this across. I hate the fact that the board has to tolerate so much negativism and I am not alone in that. I guess I'll have to stop fighting it because I keep making myself look like an idiot and a troll but nothing can make me like it.

I also believe that the Board should stop harassment of its members. I will agree with you that arguing about things of which we disagree, doesn't solve anything. I for one don't want to argue, but I'll continue to express my opinion in a truthful manner and expect that you will do the same.

 

[Kingpatzer]

DCBC, you may have never explicitely said those things directly, but the ease with which you can be interpreted to mean those things suggests that those messages are exactly what you wish to convey.

Across your continual stream of thinly disguised attacks on PADI and other agencies who are offering courses you see as inadequate there is a distinct undertone you bring to the discussion, and you often engage in "critiques" that clearly demonstrate an agenda and attitude that is inamicable to any sort of productive discussion. You have no interest in altering your view or modulating your tone; or at least have not demonstrated that to any degree.

You could be offering encouragement to new recreational divers to seeking additional training, and offering suggestions on how to find good instructors and avoiding bad ones without denigrating agencies either directly or through thinly disguised innuendo. You could be offering suggestions on material for new divers to read and ask questions about to cover areas that might not be well covered in their initial training. You could be productively engaging in discussions with instructors on how they might approach training to meeting their agency standards and to cover material that you see as necessary.

I certainly view your posts as showing a negative and confrontational attitude. You may not intend that, but I'm also not the only one seeing this (as some other responses indicate). If you want to do more than stir the hornet's nest, perhaps you should consider your approach and tone, and perhaps even if your goals are attainable. Your goals may not even be appropriate for this community, unless your goal is to fracture this community into agency camps even more than it often already is.

I agree with others, you have a great deal to offer. I certainly respect your knowledge and depth of experience. But you do come across in a way that mitigates those considerations almost entirely.

 

[DCBC]

King, thank you for your well expressed viewpoint. It has never been my intent to criticize any instructor from any agency. I do believe that a number of people have honestly interpreted that this was the case. I hold myself in-part responsible, as I obviously haven't expressed myself accurately enough in these conversations, or at least not in a way that I was interpreted in the way intended.

It would seem that some people identify with the certification that they hold in-that a criticism of that agency is held to be a criticism against them personally.

The opinions that I've expressed, have been based upon direct personal interactions with the particular agency mentioned. I've attempted to carefully document these interactions in a forthright and truthful manner. I might point-out that these criticisms haven't been made lightly, as they were serious enough for me to terminate a long standing association with the agency in-question.

Discussing ones personal experiences with a particular product, dive shop, or travel resort generally seems to be well accepted on SB. Discussing ones personal experience with a training agency is not.

When it comes to training agencies, there are different standards. We can easily recognize how each training course compares with another by reviewing them. It's just not something that some people want pointed out. That's a shame really.

Personally, if I was interested in learning how to scuba dive, I would want to know how the training programs stack up. I would also be interested in understanding what restrictions an agency places on their instructors, if this could affect the training that I was to receive. I would want to know, so that I could make an informed decision. This was the motivation for me to relate these experiences in the first place.

Over the many postings that I've made in the past few months, my viewpoints can largely be summarized as follows:

- A diver should not have to rely on diving equipment to be safe in the water (know how to swim)
- A diver should be able to perform a rescue of his buddy, to be an effective buddy
- Divers who do not possess the above skills should be properly escorted at all times by a DM/Instructor, but not be certified as independent divers.
- More training is generally better than less training

These statements don't sound too controversial to me, unless you promote diving instruction through an agency that doesn't require these for certification. The purpose is to promote discussion on what people see as reasonable. It's not a personal attack on anyone.

 

[Kingpatzer]

Over the many postings that I've made in the past few months, my viewpoints can largely be summarized as follows:

- A diver should not have to rely on diving equipment to be safe in the water (know how to swim)

Something that is part of every agency's requirements.

- A diver should be able to perform a rescue of his buddy, to be an effective buddy

Something that is part of every agency's requirements to one degree or another.

- Divers who do not possess the above skills should be properly escorted at all times by a DM/Instructor, but not be certified as independent divers.

Something you have broad agreement upon and is part of PADI's Discover Scuba and Scuba Diver programs.

- More training is generally better than less training

Something you have universal agreement on and which is stressed in the training materials and standards of multiple agencies.

So you have agreement with your main points from within the agency standards and from the people on the board. What is left then to justify thread after thread framing the discussion in a pejorative way?

 

[TCDiver1]

It would seem that some people identify with the certification that they hold in-that a criticism of that agency is held to be a criticism against them personally.

I've taught for PADI and i didn't take it that way. I don't agree with your opinion completely, any more than you agree with mine. Nothing wrong with that. However, i do agree with Rob that your posts tend to be rather polarizing to the conversation at hand. Especially for a newer diver. That's basically the main reason i respond to posts like these. It's not to pick a fight like some like to do here on SB or to change your mind which i know i won't but rather an attempt to show another side of the argument to a newer diver.

Over the many postings that I've made in the past few months, my viewpoints can largely be summarized as follows:

- A diver should not have to rely on diving equipment to be safe in the water (know how to swim)

We agree on this in concept but the definition of "know how to Swim" is the problem. As long as a student demonstrates basic comfort being in water and swimming in water i don't care how long it takes them to swim a given distance. You generally don't need to make students swim a mile against a current to accomplish this. But i agree, you do need some basic swims to assess a students watermanship ability.

- A diver should be able to perform a rescue of his buddy, to be an effective buddy

I don't disagree with this in concept but we do disagree that it should be a requirement of a good OW course. It wasn't in my OW course 30 years ago and it isn't now. I just think time is better spent working on the other basic skills being learned in OW. Rescue works as a separate class in my opinion.

- Divers who do not possess the above skills should be properly escorted at all times by a DM/Instructor, but not be certified as independent divers.

We really don't agree on this. Basically you are saying that all the divers certified from at least my OW cert. to date, are not qualified to perform dives on their own? I wasn't taught how to rescue my buddy so i wasn't qualified to dive on my own without supervision? We don't agree on this at all. I likely wouldn't be diving at all today if that was a requirement 30 years ago. Or i'd be diving without any certification like i was before i got forced into getting a OW cert.

- More training is generally better than less training

Of course this is true but where does one draw the line? Where you say? Where i say say? Or perhaps somewhere in the middle? I suspect most would say somewhere in the middle. I still say that if current standards are followed to the letter, it can put out a pretty well rounded OW diver but they must be followed and not payed lip service.

Incidentally, i didn't answer the poll either because i didn't find a choice that fit my opinion. Like many of these topics it's difficult to frame good poll answers because there aren't any clear cut answers. The same people will be supporting their side of this discussion and nothing will really change those minds. I can honestly say i have read and considered all of your stuff and while i appreciate your passion and much of where you stand, i don't agree with all of it.

I haven't been around as long as you but i've been around a bit and we simply have a different perspective on much of it.

 

[DCBC]

Something that is part of every agency's requirements.

No, not all agencies. Some require a person to be able to swim while others allow the use of FMS and drownproofing to prove watermanship ability. When I was younger, I frequently used FMS and knew how to drownproof before I could swim a stroke. Walter has mentioned that he had the same experience. Using FMS and being able to drownproof to pass a test doesn't mean that you can swim.

Something that is part of every agency's requirements to one degree or another.

Again, this is not accurate, some agencies do not require rescue at all, only a tired diver assist. Please check the standards closely to see if rescue (surface/sub-surface) is required for an OW diver.

Something you have broad agreement upon and is part of PADI's Discover Scuba and Scuba Diver programs.

Yes on these programs, but divers are certified that don't meet the above noted conditions (able to swim and perform a rescue) and are certified to dive independently.

Something you have universal agreement on and which is stressed in the training materials and standards of multiple agencies.

Yes more training is encouraged, but more training is required for certification by some agencies.

So you have agreement with your main points from within the agency standards and from the people on the board. What is left then to justify thread after thread framing the discussion in a pejorative way?

I have not belittled anyone, but there have been many like you that have read the words, but appear to have missed their meaning.

 

[Thalassamania]

I don't disagree with this in concept but we do disagree that it should be a requirement of a good OW course. It wasn't in my OW course 30 years ago and it isn't now. I just think time is better spent working on the other basic skills being learned in OW. Rescue works as a separate class in my opinion.

You are making the limiting assumption that having rescue in an entry level course means that something else has to be dropped. That's fallacious.

We really don't agree on this. Basically you are saying that all the divers certified from at least my OW cert. to date, are not qualified to perform dives on their own? I wasn't taught how to rescue my buddy so i wasn't qualified to dive on my own without supervision? We don't agree on this at all. I likely wouldn't be diving at all today if that was a requirement 30 years ago. Or i'd be diving without any certification like i was before i got forced into getting a OW cert.

Why is that? Would have been so bad at rescue that you'd have been denied certification? What is it that you are actually saying here?

Of course this is true but where does one draw the line? Where you say? Where i say say? Or perhaps somewhere in the middle? I suspect most would say somewhere in the middle. I still say that if current standards are followed to the letter, it can put out a pretty well rounded OW diver but they must be followed and not payed lip service.

I suspect that you have little or no concept of the sort of "pretty well rounded OW diver" that DCBC or I "put out." I doubt if your definition of being a "pretty well rounded OW diver" is one that we'd recognize.

I haven't been around as long as you but i've been around a bit and we simply have a different perspective on much of it.

I think it's more than just a question of perspective.

 

[seaducer]

I think Kingpatzer's post llustrates well the disconnect in alot of these threads. Where the line is drawn between competent independent divers, and those who should be escorted for the safety of all involved. Take the swim requirement for example...some people will say that the current standards are fine, others will not.

I took my OW years ago, the standards as I recall them were a little harder(but not much) than they are now. I am sorry to say I should have failed, I didn't, because the standard was very weak, but it took me a very long time and I was pretty tired when I finished. It took a local inlet dive in which I was quickly exhausted against a current that the tide tables said wouldn't be there for another 20 minutes, and I almost needed the Coast Guard to bail me out. Other divers in the water had little trouble, BTW, so it isn't like this was a raging river. But hey, I met the standard and was released on my own cheerfully.

People are drawing the lines in different places. And I think if we look at the discussion that way, instead of saying one agency doesn't do/care/test whatever, but rather in a tone of agreement (because we all feel these things are important), perhaps the discussions will be more productive.

Of course, we must all be aware that no agency is going to change their standards based on what we come up with here, so this is all academic anyway. And to that end be happy.

edit to add- I also think things should be put into a training course, and standards set, to ensure training, and not protect from lawsuits. I do personally think that the swim test fits the lawyer test, more than the competency test.

 

[Kingpatzer]

No, not all agencies. Some require a person to be able to swim while others allow the use of FMS and drownproofing to prove watermanship ability.

Within PADI, the FMS option is at the instructor's discretion, and it is not required to be given as an option.

Again, this is not accurate, some agencies do not require rescue at all, only a tired diver assist. Please check the standards closely to see if rescue (surface/sub-surface) is required for an OW diver.

A tired diver assist is a rescue operation, albeit a minimal one.

you are arguing a difference in degree, not kind. Yet you seem to make no effort towards seeking common ground, or positive discussions.

I have not belittled anyone, but there have been many like you that have read the words, but appear to have missed their meaning.

If there are many, perhaps you should consider the words you choose.

 

[DCBC]

I've taught for PADI and i didn't take it that way. I don't agree with your opinion completely, any more than you agree with mine. Nothing wrong with that. However, i do agree with Rob that your posts tend to be rather polarizing to the conversation at hand. Especially for a newer diver. That's basically the main reason i respond to posts like these. It's not to pick a fight like some like to do here on SB or to change your mind which i know i won't but rather an attempt to show another side of the argument to a newer diver.

Thanks for your comments TC. I've tried to keep much of the discussion in the advanced diver discussion area (like this one).

We agree on this in concept but the definition of "know how to Swim" is the problem. As long as a student demonstrates basic comfort being in water and swimming in water i don't care how long it takes them to swim a given distance. You generally don't need to make students swim a mile against a current to accomplish this. But i agree, you do need some basic swims to assess a students watermanship ability.

As I've already mentioned in my other reply, that this is not required by all agencies (allowing the use of FMS). Standards as you know are set by the agency. Some instructors surpass the 'minimums,' but there are agencies that prohibit their instructors from adding anything and requiring it for certification. Where I have the greatest difficulty is in certain diving conditions that require a higher skill-set but the courses can not reflect what's needed.

I don't disagree with this in concept but we do disagree that it should be a requirement of a good OW course. It wasn't in my OW course 30 years ago and it isn't now. I just think time is better spent working on the other basic skills being learned in OW. Rescue works as a separate class in my opinion.

Yes. All but one training agency (that I'm aware of) has rescue as a requirement for basic diver/OW certification. I do however respect your opinion.

Incidentally, i didn't answer the poll either because i didn't find a choice that fit my opinion. Like many of these topics it's difficult to frame good poll answers because there aren't any clear cut answers. The same people will be supporting their side of this discussion and nothing will really change those minds. I can honestly say i have read and considered all of your stuff and while a i appreciate your passion and much of where you stand, i don't agree with all of it.

This is expected. We each have different experiences, training and personalities. I suspect that these form our perspectives. As these are not the same, it's not surprising that we all don't come to the same conclusions.

I would rather a diver read and reject my opinion than not have had the opportunity to see a different viewpoint. If we all agreed with everything that the other said, it wouldn't be much of a discussion board.