History of Diver Training

[brucet]

I see all the posts on here tha are so defensive. I will say I can not speak in regards to all instructors, as I know there are those that go above and beyond, in training divers, am I commend those for that. In general, I have found many instructors do the very minimum tha PADI requires and leaves many divers barely capable if at all, to go out and dive without a guide. Truly, the problem is not with the instructor, as they are doing what is required. Seems the PADI requirements should be a little more involved. Let's take navigaion for one example. My wife got certified 2 years ago, and all that was required of navigation was an out and back straight line with a compass. This most anyone can do without a compass, and this skill does not do much good under the water. I pushed her to get her AOW, so she would have a little better training, and even felt that was rather minimal. And finally, I will agree that it is the divers responsibility to further their education, and hone their skills, but the should leave their certification class with a little better understanding of skills, such as bouyancy control, navigation, and the need for minimal safety equipment such as a knife and safety sausage.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

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.)

In this case, you ignore them. I do it every day with certain posters and topics in here.

Persons B, C, D and E have made their point ... continuing to make it only legitimizes what the other person has to say as being worthy of a response. Attacking that person is even worse, as it now puts you in the position of taking the low road.

Personally, I'll give our readers credit for being able to see the pattern and deciding for themselves how much credence they want to give it.

We all have our "buttons", John. Only we can choose whether or not to let others push them ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[seaducer]

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.

I agree with you about not including rescue in the standard OW class. I think it takes some time for people to become competent enough with all the scuba is before they are good enough to perform rescue skills without making matters worse. Some of course will be good enough right away, but I think the average needs more time.

One thing about your post though, many of the people getting certified today are not like the people who were adventurous enough to try scuba 30 or 40 years ago, and do everything on their own. Sure, some students are that way, but diving has become so common and so convenient that many people who would never have thought about it, are going for it.

In many ways that is a good thing, but it seems standards keep dropping in order to accomodate people who even 10 years ago would have been considered too out of shape to dive. And BTW this is an observation of a great many things, not just diving. Institutions with standards for admission are constantly being bombarded to lower them in order to be all inclusive. Well standards were there for a reason, and whenever there is resistance to lowering them it creates a real stir. And then people get testy on both sides and well, here we are

 

[seaducer]

I see all the posts on here tha are so defensive. I will say I can not speak in regards to all instructors, as I know there are those that go above and beyond, in training divers, am I commend those for that. In general, I have found many instructors do the very minimum

My experience has been the opposite. Most instructors I know have been top shelf, and only a few were bottom scrapers.

 

[DCBC]

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?

If self-propulsion was all that was required, they could be in a canoe. Peter, as you know, I'm from the old school. Now I'm aware that some words have been modified and new words have been added to our language. If you would like to call people using Fins, Mask and a Snorkel 'swimmers,' you go right ahead. I myself define swimming as the ability to move progressively in the water by means of strokes with the hands and feet, unaided by supportive measures that include: a boat, raft, flotation device, swim wings, or FMS.

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.

The Royal Lifesaving Society differentiates between a rescue and an assist. I believe that the same differences are accepted by the Red Cross. The difference between them is the level of urgency of the situation, to wit: a real and immediate danger to life unless prompt intervention occurs.

To the best of my knowledge ACUC, CMAS, NAUI and SEI require prior to certification, a diver to perform various diver assists, as well as a number of rescues including: a panicked victim on the surface and a rescue of a conscious and unconscious victim both on the surface and below it. Are you saying that PADI requires this as a requirement for OW certification as well?

Although I'm not proud to say it, I have been rescued while unconscious underwater after experiencing oxygen poisoning. It does happen and I'm glad that the other diver knew how to recover me. So if you're asking me, it is an important skill that every diver should know. I suppose that's why most diving certification agencies in the world include it in there basic and OW programs.

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.

One would hope so. But this does lend itself to the question: What skills should a diver possess before they are certified to dive unsupervised and independently; and are those skills being ensured?

Peter to be clear, I obviously believe that unaided swimming and rescue skills should be included; most agencies agree with me. I appreciate that your opinion may be different than mine. To me it's not what we believe that's important; it's the prospective student that should be knowledgeable about the level of training they receive. They deserve full disclosure and honesty. It's their decision to make, not ours.

 

[brucet]

I agree with you about not including rescue in the standard OW class. I think it takes some time for people to become competent enough with all the scuba is before they are good enough to perform rescue skills without making matters worse. Some of course will be good enough right away, but I think the average needs more time.

One thing about your post though, many of the people getting certified today are not like the people who were adventurous enough to try scuba 30 or 40 years ago, and do everything on their own. Sure, some students are that way, but diving has become so common and so convenient that many people who would never have thought about it, are going for it.

In many ways that is a good thing, but it seems standards keep dropping in order to accomodate people who even 10 years ago would have been considered too out of shape to dive. And BTW this is an observation of a great many things, not just diving. Institutions with standards for admission are constantly being bombarded to lower them in order to be all inclusive. Well standards were there for a reason, and whenever there is resistance to lowering them it creates a real stir. And then people get testy on both sides and well, here we are

I will have to agree with you in the fact the standards have been lowered to make diving available to everyone. While I am all for people diving, there are those that are too out of shape, and put themselves at great risk, without fully understanding those risks. This is where more extensive training comes in.

 

[Kingpatzer]

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.

I've yet to see someone who doesn't look comfortable in the water who also doesn't fail to hang onto the edge of the pool if only for a second or two. However, as the swim is required to be a non-stop swim that, in my mind, is sufficient reason to fail the event for that person.

There's plenty of 'wiggle room' in PADI's requirements. Go lay out a 200 meter swim on a lake with waves, or in a river with a current ... it doesn't say "in a pool," and it doesn't allow for hanging on the sides, no matter how short of a "hang" it is.

Consistently apply a very rigid interpretation and weak swimmers don't pass.

 

[DCBC]

I've yet to see someone who doesn't look comfortable in the water who also doesn't fail to hang onto the edge of the pool if only for a second or two. However, as the swim is required to be a non-stop swim that, in my mind, is sufficient reason to fail the event for that person.

There's plenty of 'wiggle room' in PADI's requirements. Go lay out a 200 meter swim on a lake with waves, or in a river with a current ... it doesn't say "in a pool," and it doesn't allow for hanging on the sides, no matter how short of a "hang" it is.

Consistently apply a very rigid interpretation and weak swimmers don't pass.

In all due respect, you don't necessarily have to know how to swim to pass, but we've had this conversation...

 

[Slamfire]

Consistently apply a very rigid interpretation and weak swimmers don't pass.

True. And if the instructor doesn't keep weak swimmers from diving, then maybe mother nature will step up to retire them...

Sorry... Couldn't keep the snarky comment from coming out I know weak swimmer divers are not dying a dime a dozen...

 

[Herk_Man]

You know, I had a bit of an epiphany considering how I felt about this. The subject of modern day certification comes up a lot, along with the discussion about how to find a good instructor. Having experienced a modern certification course from good instructors and knowing that I learned in a one week course what I needed to know in order to be safe, I've come to the following conclusion.

Perhaps the problem is not the perceived shortcuts in modern training, but the quality of the instructors that are being certified. If on one hand we know that it is possible to produce a basic OW diver in two days of classroom, two days in the pool, and two days in OW, then there has to be some other variable that still allows for incompetent divers to receive a C-Card. That variable can only be the instructor.

And discussions on this board have pointed to that being the truth. There are a lot of people that have dealt with poor instruction and had a horrible experience getting certified. How did these instructors get certified as instructors in the first place?

It is my opinion that it is not the course standards that have declined, but the standards by which we determine that someone is qualified to be teaching other divers those standards.