Is learning from PADI that bad?

[DCBC]

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...

You missed the point. You CANNOT examine on anything that's not in the standards and make this required for certification. That's the difference. If a student only learns the minimum (as set-out in the standards), you MUST certify. Are you saying that this has been changed???

 

[Akimbo]

... 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.

DCBC is not alone on this issue. I personally hold PADI is the lowest regard of all training agencies. It is sad what their market leadership has done to students and the industry over the years.

 

[Peter Guy]

DCBC wrote (once again)

You CANNOT examine on anything that's not in the standards and make this required for certification. That's the difference. If a student only learns the minimum (as set-out in the standards), you MUST certify.

The first part of that statement is not correct, the second part is. There is nothing in "PADI-Land" which says I can't "examine" my students about this, that or the other thing. In fact, I "examine" my students on a lot of things that aren't specifically covered in the various material provided (sold) by PADI. Because I can "flesh out the course" I get to ask lots of questions, run problems, etc. and have the students learn the extra materials -- and yes, "examine" them on the topics. (Note, for the most part, I do this regarding Gas Management.) I don't expect them to nail the material at first but I do expect them to understand that it exists AND that there is more to learn. But DCBC is correct, I can not withhold a cert because they "don't get it" -- OTOH, as it turns out, either I've had great students, I'm a decent instructor, or some combination of both, they do learn the material and so the fact that it is not part of any final exam is irrelevant.

Perhaps DCBC can only confirm that his students learn by some sort of final (approved) testing. I think I can determine they understand material by talking and working on problems with them.

Edward, what I posted isn't about PADI "standards" per se (which HAVE changed over the years) but about the whole notion that DCBC (and others) keep mis-stating which is "adding" vs. "expanding" on content. I haven't sat through a PADI IDC in a couple of years but I'd be shocked to find out this essay isn't still on the required reading list -- if only because so many people think that you can ONLY teach what is specifically stated as opposed to being able to "flesh out" the course based on the students and the environment.

As far as I know, as a PADI instructor I am not allowed to teach Buddy-breathing to an Open Water student now. As far as I'm concerned, that is a PLUS since I see very little real world relevance in teaching that "skill." As with the unresponsive diver on the bottom "skill" -- how relevant is it IN REAL LIFE IN RECREATIONAL DIVING? We don't teach feathering of the valve either which seems like a skill that is more relevant than buddy breathing.

A little while ago DCBC purported to answer my request for real world incidents where, in a recreational diving setting, a RECREATIONAL diver would have needed to surface a living, unresponsive diver. He provided 4 incident -- one was a rebreather incident (I don't think even NAUI thinks being on a rebreather is within the recreational diving world); two were dead divers and one was just mentioned without giving the specifics. Since DCBC is a long time commercial diver, one might expect him to have been involved in some unresponsive diver efforts -- but commerical diving is NOT recreational diving and the training must be different. So, I'm asking again, in all the thousands of dives that people have done, WITHIN RECREATIONAL DIVING LIMITS, how many times have ANY of you had the opportunity to find and surface a living, unresponsive recreational diver?

Note -- DCBC mentioned two incidents of surfacing dead divers. At least where I do most of my diving, Washington state, recreational divers are instructed NOT to surface dead divers but to just mark them and let the PSDivers come do their thing. And yes, there could be the issue of "Is the guy really dead" and no, I don't have a response to that.

Oh, and now I guess we have, what, buddy breathing, surfacing an unresponsive diver, SMB deployment -- what else is so lacking from the PADI OW standards? As far as I know, there is nothing in the standards that would prohibit an instructor from demonstrating (and teaching) a PADI OW student the second and third things -- and SMB deployment may well be taught in the AOW program.

So really, is the PADI system that bad? Or are we really back to "It's the instructor, not the agency."

 

[Edward3c]

Hi Peter,

OK, I got the wrong impression (not that unusual on a forum).

Thanks for clarifying your distinction between additional skills to help the student and additional skills to get a certification; even BSAC don’t have an issue with that.

I do question the ‘buddy breathing’ skill though. Unless their diving with others so taught and experienced it could cause confusion and unnecessary stress. I was taught BB, but I wouldn’t expect an OOG casualty, today, to use that procedure as I haven’t practiced it in over 10 years.

Kind regards

 

[boulderjohn]

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.

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.

There was an entire thread on this--apparently you missed it.

This is a Distinctive Specialty created and taught by ONE person. That person is a therapist. It is designed for people who passed their certifications and either developed or discovered phobias that made diving problematic for them. Obviously someone who was too terrified to dive would not have been certified in the first place.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

Thanks for the answer on buddy breathing. I appreciate it. I am not going to argue incessantly (on this thread anyway), but the utility and benefit of buddy breathing is much greater than the skill to bring up a living unresponsive diver.


When I taught my kids, this was a definite pre-requisite before open water dive and they had to master it in open water too. BB teaches a tremendous amount of confidence and is actually useful in itself. I've only brought one recreational diver to the surface that was unresponsive, but unfortunately he was not living.

 

[DCBC]

The first part of that statement is not correct, the second part is. There is nothing in "PADI-Land" which says I can't "examine" my students about this, that or the other thing. ...Perhaps DCBC can only confirm that his students learn by some sort of final (approved) testing. I think I can determine they understand material by talking and working on problems with them.

Peter, there were no two parts to my statement: "You CANNOT examine on anything that's not in the standards and make this required for certification." This is one single correct statement, as you're well aware.

...about the whole notion that DCBC (and others) keep mis-stating which is "adding" vs. "expanding" on content.

Adding: To increase in amount, number, or degree.
Expanding: To increase or elaborate in detail.

You "expand" a topic by adding more detail on the topic under discussion, not by introducing new material on an unrelated topic (I believe that's "adding" material).

Since DCBC is a long time commercial diver, one might expect him to have been involved in some unresponsive diver efforts -- but commerical diving is NOT recreational diving and the training must be different. So, I'm asking again, in all the thousands of dives that people have done, WITHIN RECREATIONAL DIVING LIMITS, how many times have ANY of you had the opportunity to find and surface a living, unresponsive recreational diver? DCBC mentioned two incidents of surfacing dead divers. At least where I do most of my diving, Washington state, recreational divers are instructed NOT to surface dead divers but to just mark them and let the PSDivers come do their thing. And yes, there could be the issue of "Is the guy really dead" and no, I don't have a response to that.

I was referring to recreational diving. You seem to restrict the definition of a "non-responsive submerged diver" to mean 'dead.' I don't see it that way at all. As an example, I've taken divers to a shallower depth that were "unresponsive" due to narcosis. Secondly, a "non-breathing unconscious victim underwater," must be brought to the surface, as soon as its reasonable to do so. I would suggest that in most diving locations, if you waited for PS Divers, it would be too late for the victim. This is why I believe that it's mandatory that every diver has a competency in sub-surface rescue.

So really, is the PADI system that bad? Or are we really back to "It's the instructor, not the agency."

To be clear, I have not stated that the PADI system is bad. I do not however believe that PADI Standards are sufficient for all diving environments. Personally, I don't believe that NAUI's standards are sufficient for all environments either. NAUIs saving grace (in my view) is that it encourages the Instructor to increase these standards where its reasonably required to improve diver safety. The Instructor can add, test and ensure competence on the total program and assess the student on all of the material, as a prerequisite for certification. That's the difference.

NAUI isn't the only Agency to do this. PADIs philosophy is different. If this suits the needs of the Instructor and the prospective student, great! I would hope that any person who enrolls in a training program (of any type) looks into what they will receive for their money and makes a choice. Whatever choice they make is up to them.

It seems that on SB, anyone who points out any difference between an Agency, that this is quickly labeled as bashing (which is not the case). To me it's similar to how many U.S. citizens initially looked at the war in Iraq. If anyone said anything to object, you heard 'Don't you support the troops?' Which had nothing at all to do with the initial question. People should be open to discussion. We all have our opinions. It's only through examination that we can improve.

When selecting a diver training program many people want a lower price and a quick solution. Usually you get what you pay for. In this market, PADI is King. That does not mean that there aren't other Agencies not competing toe-to-toe with PADI who focus on quality not quantity. It has been apparent to me, that I did not wish to 'compete for sales' with PADI. I just didn't want to go there. My niche market has been on more comprehensive diver training (it always has been) and I'm not the only Instructor who has taken this position.

PADI just can't compete with a 50 or 100 hour initial diver training program. How could it? I couldn't do as good a job, if I spent less than half the time. So believe me, if someone wants to get a certification card quickly and easily, I'm the first person to direct them to a PADI 5 Star Training Facility. It certainly would have been my last choice if I was selecting a program for a loved one.

 

[agilis]

There was an entire thread on this--apparently you missed it.

This is a Distinctive Specialty created and taught by ONE person. That person is a therapist. It is designed for people who passed their certifications and either developed or discovered phobias that made diving problematic for them. Obviously someone who was too terrified to dive would not have been certified in the first place.

Only one person is doing this? Interesting. Thanks for the clarification. I did miss that thread. Second hand references can be misleading. I'm sure that the references I've seen mentioning absurd things like solo diving certifications also involve only a very few individuals. I certainly hope so.

In connection with the frightened diver issue, I've been on lots of resort dive boats and there are sometimes obviously terrified divers on board. These are people with OW and AOW certifications. You can read the fear in their faces and hear it in their voice. After they submerge their air consumption is astounding. Some appear to be on the edge of panic. A few have to be escorted to the surface, their eyes bugged out and rolling in their heads like a steer in a slaughter house. How the hell did they get certified? I suppose it's possible that they developed a phobia after being certified, and need help of some sort before they venture into the water again.

 

[DCBC]

...In connection with the frightened diver issue, I've been on lots of resort dive boats and there are sometimes obviously terrified divers on board. These are people with OW and AOW certifications. You can read the fear in their faces and hear it in their voice. After they submerge their air consumption is astounding. Some appear to be on the edge of panic. A few have to be escorted to the surface, their eyes bugged out and rolling in their heads like a steer in a slaughter house. How the hell did they get certified? I suppose it's possible that they developed a phobia after being certified, and need help of some sort before they venture into the water again.

I agree agilis; this is too often the case and is reflective of the training they've received. Over the years, the number of divers that fall into this category have increased (or at least that's been my impression). I'm sure the 'protectionists of today's training standards' will be quick to point-out that I don't have any empirical proof (statistics), so any such opinion is invalid. I do however believe, that we all have seen poorly trained divers on dive charters. Perhaps this is a sign of the times...

 

[Peter Guy]

DCBC wrote

PADI just can't compete with a 50 or 100 hour initial diver training program. How could it?

Since I'm not aware that "PADI" teaches any Open Water classes, I'm more than a little confused by this statement.

OTOH, I just finished an Open Water Class, offering a PADI Open Water Card, through a Local Dive Shop, that consisted of the following time schedule:

a. Home (i.e., independent) study -- read/study the manual, watch the DVD -- although it is not clocked, I'm told the total amount of home study time averaged at least 8 hours.

b. Class room (lecture/review) -- 6 sessions beginning at 6:30 and ending at 8:30 (12 hours)

c. Confined water -- 6 sessions from 8:30 to 11:00 (including 15 minutes of transportation time, setup/tear down) (15 hours)

d. Open Water -- 2 days -- meet at 7:30 a.m., final debrief approximately 1 p.m. (11 hours)

OK, total student time for this PADI Open Water Class --46 hours. Yep, not GUE's 50 hours but pretty close. As far as I can tell, the LDS is making money doing this and I think the students are coming out with a pretty solid foundation. Do they need to learn more if they want to be good "Puget Sound Divers?" Heck yes. There is always more to learn.