Is learning from PADI that bad?

[SeahorseDeb]

Fwiw, I'm going to add a personal recollection. I certified old school PADI in 1976. I was the only girl in the room. I was treated with dignity and respect when there weren't too many women in the sport. The course was much more difficult to pass then than now. It was more of a navy seal course. I thought about quitting it every minute I was there, but my passion for the ocean held me steadfast and I made it!

Fast forward to 2008 after being out of the water awhile: I recertified with a different agency because the LDS offered a course that was easier for me to fit into my work schedule. I saw things happen during that course that were dangerous and unethical---really bad stuff. I got my OW C-card and got the heck out of there. Now the shop is closed and has two pending lawsuits against them. I went to our other LDS which is PADI and completed my AOW, Nitrox and Deep. The level of instruction from the shop was extremely high, they are very ethical and very safe in the way they taught the courses, and fwiw, I had three different instructors for all three of those certs. So my point here is that it may not necessarily be the agency, (although many of you have thoroughly discussed that topic so i wont repeat that) it could be the ethics of the LDS who offer the courses and how they treat their students. And yes, I'm proud to show my PADI card, they made me work hard to get it and don't run a "puppy mill."

 

[xyrandomyx]

What's a 'hoodie'? I guessing it's a hood, a snug flexible thing that goes over your head to keep it warm while diving. Is a hoodie simply a hood for which one has developed a deep affection and is consequently referred to with an infantalized diminutive? Wet suitie? Bootie? Sockie? Maskie? Snorkie?

Actually, I'm starting to like the idea. I think I'll head down to my dive shoppie and get my tankie filled.

I dived with someone a few weeks ago who called photographs 'photies'. 'Bootie' and 'hoodie' are common, though 'maskie' and 'snorkie' might get you a funny look, although it's equally likely to catch on with everyone else. We're a funny bunch down here at the southern tip of Africa.

 

[SeahorseDeb]

I dived with someone a few weeks ago who called photographs 'photies'. 'Bootie' and 'hoodie' are common, though 'maskie' and 'snorkie' might get you a funny look, although it's equally likely to catch on with everyone else. We're a funny bunch down here at the southern tip of Africa.

It could be a dialect thing-eeee. Like them Aussies, Scots, Norskies etc., but then when you come out here to the western USA where we just discovered regulators and tanks (and electricity), anything in world languages must be versatile! So I'm going diveeeeeeing tomorrow, in the rain, surface temp and water temp should be equaleeeee....43 Fahrenheit ! Wow, I'm reeeeeeeeealleeeee off topic! Back to my octopus cave....

 

[Simon-]

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?

Thal, to be honest, I don't give it that much thought. But then, who am I to judge other agencies and instructors?

I am not into dick swinging contests over "my agency is better than yours".

 

[DCBC]

Thal, to be honest, I don't give it that much thought. But then, who am I to judge other agencies and instructors?

I am not into dick swinging contests over "my agency is better than yours".

Simon,

I'm an instructor with more than one agency, so any "one agency" isn't sacred ground to me. Even when I was the National Director (Canada) for the World Underwater Federation (CMAS), I sat back and looked at the organization in a critical manner. How else can it be improved? I believe it is the duty of every instructor to critically reflect on his training program. It is something that each of us owes their students.

Some instructors will defend "their Agency" without having critically looked at its policies, or having any understanding of how its done by others. Sometimes if a statement is made like "The difference between a NAUI and PADI Instructor is that a NAUI Instructor is a member of his organization (has a vote), where a PADI Instructor doesn't." In a such a case, the term PADI bashing can usually comes up. No "dick swinging contests," just one truthful statement. Regardless, no one wishes to discuss the differences and because of this, any meaningful discussion is impossible...

I believe that PADI possesses many positives (such as the PIC and their quality control system), however it does have (like most other agencies) some negatives. Of course these can't be discussed (no PADI bashing) regardless of the truthfulness of any statement...

 

[boulderjohn]

There is a difference between agency bashing, PADI or otherwise, and discussing the pros and cons of its policies. In the last two days I, as a PADI instructor, have openly contested the way PADI teaches CESA. I have done that before. I have in the past challenged the purpose and method of the air depletion exercise and their thinking on the rescue scenario with the non-breathing diver. I have openly challenged the way that skills are usually introduced (on the knees) and have worked with others to publish an article showing a different way to do it in the PADI professional journal. Those kinds of discussions make things better--I have made those same comments directly to PADI in an attempt to improve the agency. There is nothing wrong with that, and I participate in those discussions with enthusiasm.

So how is agency bashing different from that? It comes in a number of forms.

It comes in messages with the total intellectual content of "[Agency] sucks!"

It comes in the form of mindless repetition of old, tired, and meaningless clichés ("Put Another Dollar In," as if it were not true that all agencies offer multiple certification levels, etc.).

It comes in the form of repeating over and over and over and over again the same misinformation that has been corrected over and over and over and over again. That is just plain lying.

It comes in the form of assaulting the forum with a barrage of new threads and the hijacking of other threads to repeat the same attacks again and again and again and again and again and again.

 

[Peter Guy]

Interesting issue DCBC -- can one critically discuss any agency's policies without being accused of "agency bashing?" I know I am periodically accused of being a PADI basher (gasp!) because of critical comments about PADI's standards (or lack thereof). As you know, I am also accused of being a PADI lover (gasp!) because of supportive comments about PADI's standards. The issue, perhaps, is how the comments are made.

For example, saying that PADI (or NASE or, or...) has "lowered" standards certainly implies (if not necessarily states) that the standards are less than one believes they should be. OTOH, by stating that the standards have been "modified" or "changed" to "X" perhaps carries no such negative status. In addition, the appeal to authority that, for example, you and Thal make all the time, to imply (or state) that you know truth and us young whipper snappers don't, may not be (is not) the most effective way of proving your point. Thal, for example, is very fond of saying that graduates of his program have zero fatalities (don't know if there are any other incidents of any kind). But guess what, graduates of my program have zero fatalities too -- and, as far as I know, graduates of the program my LDS has run for years, through many different instructors (and who knows, perhaps similar total numbers of graduates) have zero fatalities.

So perhaps we all really need the Rodney King Rule -- "Can't we all just get along?"

 

[Thalassamania]

...
For example, saying that PADI (or NASE or, or...) has "lowered" standards certainly implies (if not necessarily states) that the standards are less than one believes they should be. OTOH, by stating that the standards have been "modified" or "changed" to "X" perhaps carries no such negative status. In addition, the appeal to authority that, for example, you and Thal make all the time, to imply (or state) that you know truth and us young whipper snappers don't, may not be (is not) the most effective way of proving your point.

I don't recall either of us ever having use an appeal to authority, in fact I'd say that we are both rather careful to provide evidence and explanation rather than to just point to our credentials and tell you to shut up.

Thal, for example, is very fond of saying that graduates of his program have zero fatalities (don't know if there are any other incidents of any kind). But guess what, graduates of my program have zero fatalities too -- and, as far as I know, graduates of the program my LDS has run for years, through many different instructors (and who knows, perhaps similar total numbers of graduates) have zero fatalities.

There is an example. The fact that there has never been a fatality involving a Scripps model trained diver, going all the way back to the first courses in 1952 is what I pointed out, not that none of my students has ever died. Rather a different thing, no? Clearly you can not claim that no PADI certified diver has ever died in a diving accident, can you? That is the comparison of interest here, anyone can cherry-pick a sub-sample and use that to "prove" the most preposterous concept ... that is the major way in which statistics are abused. Now ... let's be absolutely clear, so that we don't have to do this again in the future: I have never attempted to compare the divers that I produce directly with those that you produce, on any basis; because despite the obvious benefit to my side of the discussion that approach is clearly inflammatory, counter productive and begins to tread lightly on a appeal to authority. However, I have made, and will continue to make, a simple, clear, declarative statement concerning the prevalence or absence of diving fatalities within clearly defined groups ... that is evidence, not to be confused with an "appeal to authority." It deserves better than your introduction of the sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-statistic that you, personally, or that one LDS have not had a fatality. You are looking at a tiny sub-sample of all PADI students, while I am looking at a census of all divers trained to a defined standard.

So perhaps we all really need the Rodney King Rule -- "Can't we all just get along?"

"Getting along," sure, I wish you no harm, in fact I wish you every success, but that does not mean that I must bend over backwards to avoid stating the truth as I see it because that might upset you.

 

[TSandM]

Thal, given that Scripps program certified divers are probably numbered in at best the high hundreds, and that PADI divers are numbered in the hundreds of thousands, a direct comparison of numbers of fatalities is not very useful. In fact, I'm quite sure I could pick a group of PADI divers numbering the same as the Scripps divers, and show that there had not been a fatality in that group, ever. Fatality rates in diving, although distressing, are actually extremely low.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

I think one of the things that I have been considering and really thinking about after some interaction with SEI HQ on some things is that the agency, whether PADI, NAUI, SEI, etc. does not train divers. The individual instructor does. And that can be very bad. Regardless of agency ifthe instructor chooses to cut corners, teach to the bare minimums, or sometimes as had been often posted here -not even to those.

While I disagree with some of the practices that they seem to permit and the resistance to allow instructors to add material, skills, and knowledge that they feel is necessary for their areas and require that material to be understood as part of the certification process, it is nonethless still up to the instructor to set the bar as high as permitted so that the people who have their name on their card are a direct reflection of that instructor. PADI has nothing to do with the reputation of the instructor. The instructor is solely responsible for that. He/she is solely responsible for the amount of knowledge they pass on. The problem I think is that there is not enough emphasis during the development process of that instructor on that point.

When I did my YMCA crossover and internship to DM, then to AI, followed by instructor it was constantly reinforced and noted that the way your students responded in the water, once they were out of your classes and had a cert card, was a direct reflection of the skill and knowledge of the instructor. And of the instructors judgment. Turning out a new diver who could not maintain buoyancy control, did not know how to properly weight themselves, or was incapable of assisting another diver was not only a poor demonstration of the instructors skills, but also a clear indication of the instructors poor judgment.

You could not, by standards, issue a card to someone who was not fully capable of diving independently with a buddy of equal training and skill. You could not tell them to not worry about keeping track of their air supply because a DM would do it. You could not tell them they could rely on a DM to keep them safe, plan their dive, or get them safely back to the shore or boat. They had to do that. If you felt they could not then you can't issue a cert card until they demonstrate they can. Simple.

Now am I saying that SEI, which had carried over those standards and actually toughened some others, is perfect? No way. I disagree with a number of their ideas. It's why I did a crossover to SDI/TDI. So that I could teach courses that SEI does not offer or are pushing the limits of their rules. SEI recommends sport divers not exceed 100 feet at any time. Well there are some good wrecks just a bit below that and so I issue Deep and Wreck certs through SDI and an Intro to Tech that introduces doubles, stages, etc.

I don't agree with SDI's computer nitrox, I can teach it if someone actually buys a computer and wants to do that but I push the SEI and TDI classes as they are much more in depth and nearly identical in content.

If an instructor feels constrained by their agency standards, just crossover and get a rating from an agency that will allow you to teach to your moral, ethical, and other beliefs. Then use which ever agency is appropriate for the student and your style. I think some get into the idea that they owe the agency some kind of loyalty above what is really required.

Where loyalty is necessary and should be focused is on the student first, then yourself, then your family, then your dive buddy(s), then maybe your shop if they treat you right, and then your agency. Some may choose to toss a deity in there some place and that's fine. But all the agency is for is to supply you with product. You are the customer. That makes you the boss. Agencies need instructors to survive. We don't actually need agencies. All of them could collapse tomorrow. And I could still teach. Still produce classroom materials, print cards, sell gear. The agency just adds a layer of liability protection that is necessary in today's society.

But if the agency fails it doesn't take my skills, knowledge, and ability with it. Agencies should be loyal to us. Listen to us. Take our counsel. Meet our needs. And realize we are the boss. Just as our students are our bosses.