History of Diver Training

[DCBC]

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

I suppose when it comes to the minimum level of safety required for a student to obtain, I believe that the decision should be specified by the training agency. Perhaps we disagree on what this minimum should be.

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

I don't define it as a rescue, rather than an assist (like most training agencies).

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

Like I have said, I need to try to be clearer, but if someone does not read the words and comprehend their meaning, I can do little more than what I've done.

 

[brucet]

I will say I have been certified since 1982. I believe the traing I got was much better than the training my wife got 2 years ago. Seems that divers are pushed through quicker in the interest of making money. I will say the education material outline everything very well, but the course lack in skill training. I have personally seen the concept of overweighting divers and having them rely on air to compensate. Seems it would be much better to teach proper bouyancy skills from the start. It seems that you need to get AOW to get the training I did in my OW 28 year ago.

 

[seaducer]

I will say I have been certified since 1982. I believe the traing I got was much better than the training my wife got 2 years ago. . . .

Almost my exact same story, except I certified in 1991. Seeing how the OW course has changed in that time is where I am coming from.

I will say the education material outline everything very well, but the course lack in skill training.

The books are much better, at least they look more interesting and probably get more attention than the old manuals did. I noticed certain skills were omitted in my wife's class, and that the students were given more "free time" in the pool as opposed to the more organized and coached sessions I went through. My wife was not comfortable with scuba when it came time to check out, with maybe 5 or 6 hours pool time under her weight belt. I was OK with that since I would be her buddy BUT she dropped out of her checkout dives after making one good one, and one bad one. Part of that problem was sinus issues, but I think more training time would have made her more comfortable. She is still not certified and I do not think she ever will be. I do believe part of that was her instructors fault. She met the standards, but could have used more time and coaching, but that was not mandated by the agency, so this particular instructor didn't bother.

 

[Slamfire]

She met the standards, but could have used more time and coaching, but that was not mandated by the agency, so this particular instructor didn't bother.

My wife and I got OW certified at the same time. The difference between her and I was that at the time I had 18 yrs of diving history and she had none. As I said before, I was informally trained by my dad using 60's methodologies. I did take her for several extracurricular pool sessions personally coaching her to fine tune skills that she mentioned she was having trouble with. By the time we had our open water checkout dives, she passed all the skills with flying colors and no stress whatsoever. In fact, she enjoyed it quite a bit.

Now if I could only convince her to do cold water diving, we would be golden...

 

[DCBC]

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'm sorry, but I don't see a disconnect. What I do see mainly comes down to:

a) Most agencies require a student to demonstrate swimming competitence before certification and another specifies that this isn't required;
b) Most agencies require a student to demonstrate in-water rescue (surface/sub-surface) before certification and another prohibits their instructors from including it as a requirement for certification in their OW program;
c) All agencies mentioned certify these divers to dive unsupervised and independently.

Regardless of the length of the course or the strength of the instructor, much of what can and can not be required for certification is set by the agency. My problem is not with the instructor, not even with the agency, but with the standards of any agency that doesn't insist on these minimums.

Perhaps there are people that don't expect their buddy to know how to swim or be competitent to rescue them if they run into trouble. I do. Moreover, I don't see how such low standards contributes to a growing and stable industry, free of government regulation.

Things have started to change. Europe is becoming more regulated, as are parts of Canada (Quebec). In Canada at least, the cause of several diving accidents has been attributed to inadequate training. The government had enough and stepped in.

It seems that higher standards will increase diver safety and if this is the case, I'm for higher standards. This will no doubt affect the bottomline of some businesses, however this cost is a reasonable one (but that's just my opinion).

 

[Peter Guy]

DC -- Just want to make sure you are NOT referring to my agency, PADI, with the following comments:

a) Most agencies require a student to demonstrate swimming competitence (sic) before certification and another specifies that this isn't required;

PADI does require "swimming competence" prior to certification -- at least in my opinion which is perhaps "Clintonesque" in that "it depends on the definition of" swimming. I happen to believe that people who wear a Mask, Fins and Snorkel and propel themselves through the water are swimming -- just as people who propel themselves through the water on their back and waving their arms in circles are swimming, etc. You seem to have a different definition, but what is magic about YOUR definition -- self-propulsion through the water is self-propulsion, is it not?

b) Most agencies require a student to demonstrate in-water rescue (surface/sub-surface) before certification and another prohibits their instructors from including it as a requirement for certification in their OW program;

Again, what we have is perhaps "A failure to communicate" in regards to "in-water rescue" at the basic OW level. (I'll just take it as a given that your statement that "most agencies" do what you believe is "right" but I have no independent knowledge of this and, sorry to say, your prior statements have put me in the "trust but verify" position, but I digress.) My agency, PADI, does require the OW student to demonstrate several sub-surface AND surface "in-water rescue" skills (but NOT the one of bringing an unresponsive diver to the surface -- and in reality, how often is the bringing of an unresponsive diver to the surface a rescue, as opposed to a recovery? -- so is it REALLY an important skill?). What are the important sub-surface rescue skills? I'd say providing gas to another diver and helping them to the surface is Number One -- and that is certainly taught. What else? Well, helping a panicked diver is another -- and that is taught (stop, breathe, think, act) -- as is the simple skill of cramp removal (a real issue in fact) -- and others. In addition, the PADI OW student is taught what to do if caught on the surface in adverse current (the ONE situation where I've actually had to rescue my buddy) or how to help/tow a tired diver (again one of the real situations). It may not be to your standards, but to say there is no training is just flat out incorrect.

c) All agencies mentioned certify these divers to dive unsupervised and independently.

But a real question, can anyone who learns to dive in Maui, Miami, Fiji (name your tropical location) really know how to dive "unsupervised and independently" in all locations? No, they can really only be taught to dive "unsupervised and independently" in conditions "better than, or similar to" where they were taught (at best). I would hope that even a GUE OW graduate who learned at Ginnie would have the sense to request help when she comes to the PNW and dives in cold, dark water for the first (or tenth) time.

I know you didn't identify "the agency" which is lacking in the teaching of skills so just to ease everyone's mind, I thought I'd make sure that all ScubaBoarders know that PADI is not the agency to which you referred as the one lacking.

 

[TCDiver1]

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.

Not in my opinion. As stated i believe it works as a separate class when it comes to recreational diving. Of course in your 100 hour course, intended to train scientific/professional divers i would agree that the time is well spent.

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?

Over the years divers are not dying or getting injured wholesale because they didn't get rescue training in their OW course. Are they?

I would have been just fine if taught rescue in OW class but I wasn't and i'm still fine. As are all the buddies i've dove with over the years.

I suspect you know what i'm saying but i'll be happy to explain it to you anyway. Many of us dove for years without any certification. We went down to the sporting goods store, bought some gear and went diving. The same store was glad to sell us air up until the point the dive agencies and manufacturers suggested they start requiring c-cards. It's the only reason some of us got certified in the first place. Now you are saying if we didn't get rescue training in the OW course we were forced to take, we would have had to hire a DM or instructor to hold our hand if we wanted to dive? Not a chance of that ever happening in my world. And I'm very really glad the rules were not made by you.

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.

The recreational divers i've certified over the years are doing very well for themselves. I highly doubt you would recognize them on a dive boat and your inference that you would shows how little you know about me or the divers i've certified. IMO your concept of what is required to train safe recreational divers is unnecessarily warped by the training syllabus you put your scientific divers through.

But hey, that's just my opinion, i could be wrong. I'm sure in all your splendid omniscience that you already know the answer to that.

 

[boulderjohn]

There is no need for bad blood ... unless someone is behaving outrageously, they are entitled to express their opinion. If you disagree with it, attack their position ... not their person.

I think there is a problem with this statement that has led to the bad blood. I will try to point that out by speaking generically and then bow out.

Let's say person A says something that includes incorrect information.

Person's B, C, D, and E point out with clear evidence that the information is incorrect.

Person A repeats that misinformation.

Again, multiple posters print corrections.

As the months go by, the pattern continues. Person A keeps repeating the same misinformation over and over again, sometimes craftily restating it in ways that IMPLY the misinformation without stating it specifically. (That kind of purposeful manipulation of wording is quite telling about authorial intent.)

Bad blood is a natural consequence of that sequence, and people will get attacked.

So, at any rate, over the months I have tried to participate in threads like this in a meaningful way, but I realize it was foolish of me to do so. I will be fading away. I have too much to do in my life than to be involved in things like this, and I will look for more productive ways to spend that time.

I taught some OW students this weekend. They did really well, and I think they are very well prepared for the diving futures for which they are currently so very enthusiastic. They even know how to adjust for altitude, believe it or not. I feel very good about them and the time and effort I took to get them where they are. I don't need to come to a forum like this to get depressed again, so I am bidding this continual onslaught of negative threads a very fond farewell.

 

[seaducer]

I'm sorry, but I don't see a disconnect. What I do see mainly comes down to:

a) Most agencies require a student to demonstrate swimming competitence before certification and another specifies that this isn't required;

DC -- Just want to make sure you are NOT referring to my agency, PADI, with the following comments:


PADI does require "swimming competence" prior to certification -- at least in my opinion which is perhaps "Clintonesque" in that "it depends on the definition of" swimming. I happen to believe that people who wear a Mask, Fins and Snorkel and propel themselves through the water are swimming -- just as people who propel themselves through the water on their back and waving their arms in circles are swimming, etc. You seem to have a different definition, but what is magic about YOUR definition -- self-propulsion through the water is self-propulsion, is it not?

Here is the disconnect to which I refer, the difference in the definition of "competence" as it applies to swimming, and how the language used may be read the wrong way by those who feel it is directed at them.

I am sure, for example, Peter Guy has no desire to put people in danger by allowing them a certification if they are not safe or competent in the water, and by saying that the agency he instructs for does not require competence means indirectly that Peter Guy does not require or care. I do not think you mean this, infact you stated as much, but that is how some of the posts do read.

Personally I do not define competence the same way PADI does either. From their FAQ, one needs to swim 200 meters, or FMS for 300 meters, with no time limit. I am fine with the distance, if you cannot evaluate someone's ability in the water in that amount you have no buisness teaching water skills at all. However,PADI says as long as you can complete the distance, even if you are so out of shape or so poor a swimmer that it takes you 3 hours (no time limit) that leaves no room for the instructor to refuse to pass them.

Now, I am not an instructor, perhaps there are swimming evaluation standards that are not mentioned that would preclude someone from taking an excessive amount of time, but that is not what the information I have available to me says.

Most people who do not swim competively could still swim 200 meters in 6 minutes give or take. Someone who takes 20 or more IMO is a potential danger to themselves and their buddies in places where swimming may be needed, such as in current or tidal zones.

My niece at twelve years old swam her test in less than 10 minutes, 3 adults in her class took close to a 1/2 hour and were visibly fatigued when it was over. In fact one of them asked for a break before getting to work with the gear, and proceeded to exit the pool area for a smoke . I would have failed them, but I doubt I would have been allowed to.

 

[Slamfire]

self-propulsion through the water is self-propulsion, is it not?

Before I had fully consolidated my new scuba social circle in Canada, I used to frequently drop on Saturday mornings by a LDS that offered weekly free fun dives. The LDS would usually provide a dive master to lead the dive, but sometimes there was none available. When that happened it is common for divers who have shown up to just go out insta-buddying among ourselves on our own. After all, we are all certified divers capable of diving unsupervised.

A certain Saturday, only a mother and son team and I show up. The son looks like 17 and the mother looks in her early 40's. There's no dive master. We go out to Whytecliff. Visibility in the bay above 20' was really bad, but below 20' it cleared. As we descend we lose the mother. So we go up and find her at the surface. She tells us that she's aborting this dive and that we should go on without her. At that point we are on the west wall about 100 meters from shore. I tell her I will swim back with her and she declines telling me that we should just start our dive.

With that she puts on her mask and snorkel and takes off swimming. I tell the son I'm not descending until I see that she's at least well on her way and with no problems. Because she's snorkeling face down in very low vis and is not raising up her head for visual references she ends up doing a full 360 turn. I tell the son I'm going over to her and swimming with her all the way to the shore. By the time I got to her she's done another 360 turn. I take her in all the way to shore, then swim back out 100 m where the son and I do a 15 min long dive thumbed by the son signing that he was cold.

Was the mother able to propel herself? Sure. However, I am uncertain about her capabilities to get back to shore safely. For the record, I have no idea what agency she was certified under.