Is learning from PADI that bad?

[DCBC]

As I understand it from your postings; you would ADD additional components to the course syllabus, just because you feel they’re good to have. ...

Actually Edward, I like the BSAC program. It is however primarily designed for a Club based system; something we in Canada once had, but this has been greatly reduced with the LDS focused method of instruction. I currently volunteer/teach through a military based Club and took my initial training through a Club. I only feel that the instructor should add training if it hasn't been addressed by Agency Standards and is required for Diver Safety, not for the sake of adding it.Take care.

Wayne

---------- Post Merged at 06:17 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 06:09 PM ----------

Actually, while you were gone, things were pretty darn quiet in that regard. Even Thal left the topic alone for the most part. On ScubaBoard, at least, it would probably be fair to say that yes, you are the only one. Of course, once you get going it seems like there is a real flood until people realize it is just you posting incessantly.

Because I may be the only one posting a particular point-of-view, doesn't mean that others don't agree with my opinion. I usually reply to people who quote me and want to continue the discussion, or ask specific questions.

It seems that you always want your opinion heard, which is your right. I just don't usually agree with it, which is mine.

 

[Thalassamania]

The percentage of poor instructors with PADI will be no greater than other agencies. The problem is that the actual quantity will be greater purely on the number of instructors.

While I will grant that what you are saying is true for, say, a PADI to SSI comparison, are you suggesting that at either extreme (worst or best), or at an average value, a PADI instructor (or product, e.g. completed student) is the equal of a GUE Instructor (or product), or a UTD Instructor (or product) similarly ranked within the continuum his or her agency?

 

[dumpsterDiver]

THEM, because you are relatively new to the board, you don't know how much of a waste of time your thoughtfully constructed post has been to you.

Each time he did, PADI instructors would take him on and challenge him on every one of his factually inaccurate or misleading statements, including the one you just corrected. PADI instructors, including me, add extra material all the time, and there is no problem with it. He uses a tight reading of language in the standards that make it seem as if we can't, but the reality is there is no true restriction. I worked in a shop with a dozen PADI instructors and a Course Director. One day the Course Director asked all of us to send him a list of the topics we added to the course so that he could compile an official shop list of those extras so that all the students could benefit from those additional materials and so that we could be more consistent as a group as to what we added. Note that the Course Director's action was to help us add more material, not to tell us we couldn't do it.

DCDC knows that. He has been told it many, many, times. What generally happens is he comes aggressively to a thread like this, spews his nonsense, and then finally stops when enough exasperated people have called him on his misinformation. Then he waits a couple of weeks and then enters another thread with the same misinformation. He knows that the things he is saying are either incorrect or misleading. You will not change him; your only hope is to inform the people who might think he is actually telling the truth.

What happens is that eventually the people who have been calling him on his inaccuracies get frustrated and tired of it all. One by one they drop out of the battle, while he rages on. One moderator confronted him for a while and then quit ScubaBoard completely in frustration. It is no longer a pleasurable place to visit when that is all you could read day after day after day after day. I was one of the people who took him on back then, probably the one who lasted the longest. I am writing this now, and then I am leaving the battle to fresh troops. I am only posting this for the benefit of those who are newer to ScubaBoard and have not seen the battles that were waged in the past.

I really think that buddy breathing (sharing one reg) is an essential skill. When I took the instructor course from PADI, they made a HUGE issue about NOT being allowed to add stuff to a course. It was emphasized over and over that you could NOT challenge students with games and activities and any extra performance practices that were not explicitly defined in the formal couse outline from PADI.

What you are saying about the ability to add to and enhance, say an OW course is opposite of what I was taught. Are things different now? Can you teach buddy breathing in open water, say with no mask on.. if that is something you wanted OW students to do?

 

[Peter Guy]

I've posted this before but perhaps, due to the comments that have been made about how, within the PADI system, an instructor is confined in what she may teach, it is time to enhance people's understanding of the system:

An instructor teaches a diver course assisted by the materials in the PADI System. The act of teaching consists of a) showing how to perform skills/conveying knowledge and b) assessing mastery of those skills and knowledge by having the student apply/demonstrate them.
Elaboration/Application -- Because the student must apply and demonstrate his diving skills, not only can PADI courses vary depending upon the student and the environment, but they must!...(emphasis added)

Successful teaching requires accommodating for such differences; that's not deviating from PADI Standards. That's instructor elaboration and application to specific circumstances. This is what fills the void between the established base knowledge provided by the PADI System and the individual needs of each student.

Sometimes it's not easy to differentiate between elaboration/application and "exceeding" standards. A good rule of thumb is that elaboration/application helps the student more readily apply knowledge or a skill already in the course through further knowledge or techniques specific to him or his environment. "Exceeding" standards, on the other hand, tends to alter the objective by adding unrelated knowledge or skills for which the student has no immediate application, and tends to make the course unnecessarily difficult.

[The author goes on to give examples including:]
Elaboration: In Module Four, going into more detail about the need for altitude procedures with the RDP when teaching a class in a high-altitude community.
...
Arbitrary course additions "just to exceed standards" can be very detrimental and should be avoided. Adding games and skill circuits that repeat existing skills, on the other hand, is encouraged.

Expanding upon academic material to meet local conditions, personal needs or accomodate changes in equipment and technique, is encouraged.

Hopefully, this editorial helps clear up confusion over what "exceeding" standards is and what it isn't. PADI gives instructors a skeleton -- the course outline and materials. It's up to the instructor to supply the muscle and skin -- elaborate and apply -- to make a whole course. (emphasis added)

[This is from the article: Is the PADI System Flexible?, by Drew Richardson, The Undersea Journal, Second Quarter, 1993, reprinted in the book, Best of the Undersea Journal, a text required for study for the PADI I.E.]

By definition EVERY course (scuba or otherwise) must have limits on what is taught. In addition, allowing an instructor unlimited freedom to add to a course would destroy the concept of the notion of standards. I somehow doubt that a NAUI instructor could add/require his students to do Open Water Class in doubles and a stage with dives to 300 feet.

Where the line(s) are drawn are inherently arbitrary and some people (Wayne and Thal for example) decry where PADI has drawn those lines (as is their right). However, to imply that every instructor must be permitted to draw her own lines is silly. I think Mr. Richardson wrote it well -- PADI standards/materials create the skeleton and it is up to the individual instructor to put on the muscle and skin. How different, really, is that from every other agency? Yes, there are differences in what skills are required to be "mastered" (or whatever word you wish to use), but really, other than buddy breathing and unresponsive diver recovery, what differences are there for the basic open water diver amongst the various national/international agencies?

 

[dumpsterDiver]

Exceedance of the depth limitations is not something I would be concerned about, because it is a specified criteria. That would be a standards violation.

But can you teach buddy breathing in open water or is that disallowed? I was told that you never ever break standards and you always follow all the PADI rules when teaching.
To do otherwise, I was taught, would open yourself up to huge liability, should an accident occur. You never, ever ask them to do more than the minimum, because if they got hurt, blew a lung in the pool for example doing some fun, challenging games (like we did when Drew Richardson and I were taking training classes together), the instructor was screwed. For example, having 6 or 8 people swim to corners of the pool, with no tanks on and then sharing a tank with one regulator at each corner with 1 or 2 other people...

So are things different now?

 

[Edward3c]

I've posted this before but perhaps, due to the comments that have been made about how, within the PADI system, an instructor is confined in what she may teach, it is time to enhance people's understanding of the system:

[This is from the article: Is the PADI System Flexible?, by Drew Richardson, The Undersea Journal, Second Quarter, 1993, reprinted in the book, Best of the Undersea Journal, a text required for study for the PADI I.E.]

Although I'm not a PADI instructor I would be surprised if their standards haven't been revised since 1993.

Since that time BSAC's Diver Training Programme (DTP) has undergone at least 4 major re-writes; adding new knowledge/skill-sets that didn't exist (e.g. mid-water deployment of DSMB) and removal of skill-sets (e.g. buddy-breathing).

BSAC allow flexibility, the use of dry-suits is not a core skill set within the DTP, but the competent control of buoyancy is. Additionally, we may or may not use computers, but dive planning is a requirement. Therefore a student would not be awarded a qualification if they could not meet the buoyancy and dive planning aspects of the course not whether they can or cannot use a dry-suit or computer.

What we do not allow is adding, say, a 500m swim before an Ocean Diver qualification is awarded, 200m is the standard.

Kind regards

 

[agilis]

I know very little about PADI and its training protocols and methods. I have an ancient PADI certification, my first certification, designed for experienced but uncertified divers about 40 years ago. I do remember that I knew a lot more about the technical aspects of diving than the instructor, and had to cut him out of a fishing line tangle during our open water dive. I did what I had to do to get the LDS to fill my tanks, an issue that did not exist before 1972.

I noticed that PADI now offers a course of instruction designed to reduce the fear of diving. I assumed that this was some sort of pre-certificaton requirement, similar to the remedial courses skills deficient college freshmen must complete before they are allowed to enroll in college-level classes. I discovered that this was not the case, that in fact this fear reduction course was for people who were still afraid of diving after they were certified. The irresponsibility of this approach is obvious. It is an irrefutable condemnation of the process that certified these people in the first place.

 

[TMHeimer]

agilis, I agree that a course to teach fear reduction for certified divers is at best, curious. It's too bad it's not designed for people before they take OW--this would be a great idea. Like, we'll take you up in a plane (for your first time) before we push you out the door to jump.

 

[DCBC]

I somehow doubt that a NAUI instructor could add/require his students to do Open Water Class in doubles and a stage with dives to 300 feet. ...Where the line(s) are drawn are inherently arbitrary and some people (Wayne and Thal for example) decry where PADI has drawn those lines (as is their right). However, to imply that every instructor must be permitted to draw her own lines is silly. I think Mr. Richardson wrote it well -- PADI standards/materials create the skeleton and it is up to the individual instructor to put on the muscle and skin. How different, really, is that from every other agency? ... but really, other than buddy breathing and unresponsive diver recovery, what differences are there for the basic open water diver amongst the various national/international agencies?

Since you have specifically mentioned NAUI, I'll try to address your questions. You are correct in-that a NAUI Instructor cannot require an Openwater Student to dive doubles to 300 feet. As we both are aware, this is a ludicrous suggestion, as no one would say that such training is in the best interests of the student. An NAUI Instructor can teach buddy breathing, unresponsive/submerged diver recovery/rescue, shooting a bag, increasing the water evaluation requirements for any diving environment where it would be prudent for the safety of the student. The big difference (as I see it) from an instructor's perspective, is that he can require the student to be tested on this material and the student must show mastery (or whatever you would like to call it) as a condition of certification. The PADI instructor may add certain material, but cannot require a student to be proficient in any of that material and must certify the diver if PADI's standards are met.

The key difference is that PADI has a Standard. NAUI has a "minimum standard." In my mind, this is a critical difference. If it's worth teaching, it's worth knowing. If it's worth knowing, it's worth ensuring that the student can demonstrate knowledge and proficiency as a condition of certification. Otherwise, what's the use? It's important to know or it's not.

 

[cascas]

The key difference is that PADI has a Standard. NAUI has a "minimum standard." In my mind, this is a critical difference.

It is the same difference... standard or minimum. PADI states that you HAVE to meet the standard. It does not say that it is not allowed to exceed that standard...

Nothing critical about that...

In all discussions on the quality of the courses, I miss one really critical item... And that is the quality of the student.

I personally cannot deliver a good course to a student that is not committed to following the course. If I teach a class with 2 students, one committed, and one who is not, I will get two different reviews...