How do you feel about PADI bashing on this thread??

[anzac65]

My opinion, in a nutshell.

Give it a rest. .......QUOTE]

Ditto.

 

[garyfotodiver]

My objection is not with PADI the business, but rather with those PADI "professionals" who act as if they are spreading the one true gospel.

Otherwise, the discussions can be very amusing.

 

[Thalassamania]

With the exception of a computer, the equipment you stated are *required* for PADI students (while under instruction). Obvioulsy, as has been pointed out, there are no under water police, so what they do when qualified, is up to them. However, thats a "personal" and not a "agency" issue. I, for one, would not take a diver in my group who did not have an octopus.

I’ll be happy to take a diver who has mastered buddy-breathing long before I accept most divers with all the equipment on earth hanging off them, little of which they’ve “mastered” the use of.

However, your post is pretty classic, in that it pretty much starts with the assumption that the courses have been "watered down", and then goes out to point out that the technology of diving has come a LONG way from where it was in the 60's. Could it be, is it even *vaguely* possible, that the OW courses have not been so much "watered down" as changed to reflect the changes in diving equipment and technology? And that we know a fair bit more about the REAL hazards and liabilities of recreational diving than we did in say, the 60's?

That’s foolish, just look at the metrics, how much lecture, how much pool, how much open water, what skills are required. If you don’t see that it’s been “watered down” you're blind or in some bizarre denial. Do you really think that with all your new equipment and do-dads you’ve a “safer” diver that say Luis H, or Nemrod or DA Aquamaster or captain?

Buddy breathing, to take an example, is now no longer required in the PADI OW course (it is optional). Is that "watering down" - or is it just a largely outdated and redundent (and potentially dangerous) skill to teach open water students?
-j-

Removing buddy breathing from the curriculum without first standardizing the approach to auxiliary use across the community is more that a case of “watering down,” it borders on the criminal. What that standard should be is another discussion, but let’s stipulate that the “golden triangle” is a region in Asia, not an emergency procedure.

 

[dl348]

I think divers should complete training from a variety of different certifying agencies so they can formulate their own opinion. I know I did and it helps me to stay objective.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Buddy breathing, to take an example, is now no longer required in the PADI OW course (it is optional). Is that "watering down" - or is it just a largely outdated and redundent (and potentially dangerous) skill to teach open water students?
-j-

It is watering down, it isn't outdated and it isn't dangerous to teach.

Lets talk about some other things that don't make sense. Students can do open water dive one immediately after confined water dive one. However, buoyancy control isn't introduced until confined water dive three. Descents aren't even taught until confined water dive two. What sense does that make? A diver who doesn't know how to descend or anything about buoyancy control is going diving?

Lets talk about descents though. They are to be taught in confined water dive two yet buoyancy control isn't taught until confined water dive three. How is a students supposed to even try to do a controled descent without having practiced buoyancy control?

Lets work our way all the way through the OW standards, It'll be fun.

 

[scarefaceDM]

Ok...Monday..coffee and some more bashing,,,Good times..

Decent control...should be shown on the first dive, once the instructor has gone through the basic life support...


Now Class..this is not an elavator button..it is not to BEAM you UP!...

It is watering down, it isn't outdated and it isn't dangerous to teach.

Lets talk about some other things that don't make sense. Students can do open water dive one immediately after confined water dive one. However, buoyancy control isn't introduced until confined water dive three. Descents aren't even taught until confined water dive two. What sense does that make? A diver who doesn't know how to descend or anything about buoyancy control is going diving?

Lets talk about descents though. They are to be taught in confined water dive two yet buoyancy control isn't taught until confined water dive three. How is a students supposed to even try to do a controled descent without having practiced buoyancy control?

Lets work our way all the way through the OW standards, It'll be fun.

 

[scubajcf]

Lets talk about some other things that don't make sense. Students can do open water dive one immediately after confined water dive one. However, buoyancy control isn't introduced until confined water dive three. Descents aren't even taught until confined water dive two. What sense does that make? A diver who doesn't know how to descend or anything about buoyancy control is going diving?

Confined Water 1 is taught in shallow water (water deep enough to stand in), including underwater swimming. As for Open Water 1, they do discuss Descents. Students must make a controlled descent using a line or some other physical reference. Also, in Open Water 1 (in the Standards), you are to "Demonstrate Basic Buoyancy Control." They also discuss staying over "insensitive bottom" as students will more than likely hit the bottom. The whole thought (PADI's thought) is to get them in the water [safely] as quick as possible without task loading the student with too many skills.

Personally, I do not teach any open water until the confined water sessions have been mastered! Additionally, until new divers are comfortable just kicking around the pool, they will never get the hang of buoyancy.

I have been a certified PADI diver for 22+ years. I teach and train for PADI, NAUI, PSAI, SDI/TDI/ERDI. Sometimes it seems confusing, but there is a method to many of the agencies' madness.

For those who think all the agencies are the same. They are not. There are some very fundamental differences that make them different. While I can only comment on those agencies I am certified with, they all have strengths and weaknesses. It is my experience, that the instructor leverages the strengths of each agency and adds supplemental value to the weak areas.

 

[scubajcf]

I find that PADI has this " dive it our way our you are wrong" attiude and remind me of a bunch of yppi BMW owners sipping Lattes in front of starbucks. I'm a 24 year old male athlete and those tables are and there rules are ultra watered down. I may be off the main topic a bit here. But I belive that PADI is great for 95% of divers. But for people like me, they come of as just over the top when it comes to diver safety. Not to say that you can't be TO safe. but when many other cert companys will gladly let you hit 130ft after certification and PADI stops you at 60ft. The only reason I can see PADI doing that is a attempt at more money by allowing you to be "advanced" and go to 130

How long have you been diving? How many dives do you have? What is the physiological basis that you have for making a claim that the tables are "watered down" for you?

 

[Walter]

The standards are simply minimal guidelines. Whether you bring back the SEAL training of yesteryear, utilize additional resources in your training or simply teach to the bare minimum, the student will always get out of the class exactly what the instructor puts into his teaching. "Exceed" the standards by teaching more thoroughly. You'll likely find that a student with a good grasp of even the minimum skill set will be eager to learn more and become a better diver.

That's an argument for eliminating all standards. I don't think many will agree with that concept. If we are going to have standards at all, they should be meaningful.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Confined Water 1 is taught in shallow water (water deep enough to stand in), including underwater swimming. As for Open Water 1, they do discuss Descents. Students must make a controlled descent using a line or some other physical reference. Also, in Open Water 1 (in the Standards), you are to "Demonstrate Basic Buoyancy Control." They also discuss staying over "insensitive bottom" as students will more than likely hit the bottom. The whole thought (PADI's thought) is to get them in the water [safely] as quick as possible without task loading the student with too many skills.

I understand. I was a PADI instructor when they introduced the "dive today" philosophy.

Personally, I do not teach any open water until the confined water sessions have been mastered! Additionally, until new divers are comfortable just kicking around the pool, they will never get the hang of buoyancy.

I'm with you there.

I have been a certified PADI diver for 22+ years. I teach and train for PADI, NAUI, PSAI, SDI/TDI/ERDI. Sometimes it seems confusing, but there is a method to many of the agencies' madness.

For those who think all the agencies are the same. They are not. There are some very fundamental differences that make them different. While I can only comment on those agencies I am certified with, they all have strengths and weaknesses. It is my experience, that the instructor leverages the strengths of each agency and adds supplemental value to the weak areas.

I also agree that there are significan't differences between agencies. No doubt, a good instructor can make up for weaknesses in the standards but I don't think that excuses the weaknesses in the standards.

Unfortunately many instructors are a recent product of the same certification system they are teaching and aren't able to make up for those weaknesses so you can't count on that happening. It just becomes a situation of the blind leading the blind.