NAUI versus PADI

[MichaelMc]

So what pool session does PADI introduce neutral buoyancy?

Module 1 has swim while controlling direction and depth. It also has reg clear and recover, and mask partial clear, and air share. I do not know if you could interpret any of those as only comfortably done if done while maintaining depth and trim. Or if you would need a lawyer to do so.

Module 2 has control rise and fall using inhale exhale.
Module 3 has hover. (Edit: using buoyancy control for at least 30 seconds, without kicking or sculling)
I think early start to buoyancy is a great idea, mixing that with a specific order of progression in other skills, like breath and see, is the tricky bit.

 

[The Chairman]

Module 1 has swim while controlling direction and depth.

They've been reading my notes. Now I have to figure out who the spy is that is giving out my secrets!

Module 2 has control rise and fall using inhale exhale.

I guess this replaced the fin pivot (may it forever be banished). Are there limitations? My students have to breathe themselves to the bottom and back to the surface three times. Then they have to pick up extra weight (6 lbs for male, and 4 pounds for female, two pounds at a time) and breathe themselves neutral without touching their inflator/deflator. When they've mastered that, we play underwater Jenga but in reverse. They build stacked houses out of soft 2-pound weights while hovering. I usually have to stop them at this point. It's a whole lot of fun and it makes them master hovering.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

So what pool session does PADI introduce neutral buoyancy?

Some instructors introduce neutral buoyancy right from the start of CW-1 with doing top down weighting and adjusting weights to set fairly horizontal trim.

 

[boulderjohn]

Some instructors introduce neutral buoyancy right from the start of CW-1 with doing top down weighting and adjusting weights to set fairly horizontal trim.

Absolutely. This is what PADI is now promoting, although not with the urgency some of us would prefer. The article we published in the PADI journal 5 years ago advocated it on the first skill in the first dive, and I always had students getting the feel of being neutral mid water in the shallow end before teaching that first skill.

That was when we had the whole flaming discussion referenced earlier, where people were insisting that doing it that way was against PADI standards, and they continued to deny it was within standards even when we quoted key members of PADI headquarters saying as clearly as humanly possible that teaching students while they are neutrally buoyant is acceptable from the very first session, and there are no standards violations involved. You may recall that when we quoted those statements from PADI headquarters, the naysayers responded by saying that when you ask for a ruling from PADI headquarters and get a response like that, the person responding is just voicing a personal opinion that has no validity. They said that if we did what the representatives of PADI headquarters clearly said, PADI would then expel us for violating standards. Seriously. That as the level of discussion.

 

[boulderjohn]

Better, but their claims were debunked and the only way to truly promote such false information is off of ScubaBoard.

I don't know what this means.

If you mean that people proved they were wrong in a way that any sane person would expect, yes, they were debunked. Did they accept that they were debunked? Nope. They kept saying the same thing in thread after thread after thread after thread, and they were "debunked" in thread after thread after thread after thread.

So they did promote those false ideas through ScubaBoard, and by ScubaBoard policy, they could not be stopped from doing so because we do not vet the truth of posts. It is up to the others to refute them again and again and again and again and again until they get tired of it and quit.

 

[The Chairman]

Did they accept that they were debunked? Nope.

Why would you expect unreasonable people to behave reasonably? When I am in a heated discussion, I know I'll never change the other guy's mind. I'm just trying to leave a legacy of reasonable truth for the other people who read the thread.

So they did promote those false ideas through ScubaBoard, and by ScubaBoard policy, they could not be stopped from doing so because we do not vet the truth of posts.

Where are they now? It appears they grew tired of fighting the truth.

Let's face it. We would all love for SB to disallow anyone who does not sound like "us" from posting. That's just as unreasonable as repeating the same untruth over and over again expecting it somehow to finally be accepted as gospel. People are allowed to disagree here: IF they do it respectfully and keep it friendly. Yeah, that's a big "if", ain't it. ScubaBoard has evolved and has kept evolving as we figured out how to deal with people in a respectful manner for everyone. It's not been easy and it's not been without mistakes. I don't believe that we are there yet as it's a fine line to allow criticism but to stop it short of bashing. Neither side is allowed to shout down the other. That doesn't happen many places on the internet. I'm pretty proud of our track record and don't mind tirelessly pointing out that it's not nearly as bad as you make it out to be. You won't see me crying about how you're bashing ScubaBoard because I accept criticisms even when I don't agree with them. I've heard people suggest that allowing criticisms about an agency affects their income and yet they fail to realize that they are affecting my income just as much. Do I care? Not to the point where I feel I have to silence all critics! Instead, I patiently use it as an opportunity to showcase what we've done, how far we've come and yes, as an impetus to keep us changing and evolving so we do a better job. I may never convince you that we don't allow bashing of any agency. But others will read, perchance to agree with me and so my post is not in vain.

For the record: the only way to publish anything on the internet where you'll get no disagreement is to post on a blog that doesn't allow comments. You'll have a very small audience, but you won't have to worry about anyone bashing you either.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Absolutely. This is what PADI is now promoting, although not with the urgency some of us would prefer. The article we published in the PADI journal 5 years ago advocated it on the first skill in the first dive, and I always had students getting the feel of being neutral mid water in the shallow end before teaching that first skill.

That was when we had the whole flaming discussion referenced earlier, where people were insisting that doing it that way was against PADI standards, and they continued to deny it was within standards even when we quoted key members of PADI headquarters saying as clearly as humanly possible that teaching students while they are neutrally buoyant is acceptable from the very first session, and there are no standards violations involved. You may recall that when we quoted those statements from PADI headquarters, the naysayers responded by saying that when you ask for a ruling from PADI headquarters and get a response like that, the person responding is just voicing a personal opinion that has no validity. They said that if we did what the representatives of PADI headquarters clearly said, PADI would then expel us for violating standards. Seriously. That as the level of discussion.

All I can say is PADI's only concern was that I didn't overweight them and then take weight off them when they couldn't rise by inhaling. I just add weight until they sink at the surface and fine tune a little. Works great. I hope it becomes the required way to teach.

 

[Diver0001]

I'll try, but it seems that you're confusing two separate issues: holding students to a higher standard (i.e. higher than the minimum standards established by the PADI OW course) or requiring specific additional skills for certification.

PADI instructors are allowed to teach above the minimum standards. PADI instructors are not allowed to add their own specific skills and then deny certification to students only because the students could not perform those added to the satisfaction of the instructor.

PADI instructors are permitted to assess their students' level of comfort in the water, and we are never required to take students on open water dives if we feel doing so could compromise the safety of the student (or other students, or the instructor.)

I agree with the above post insofar that it is accurate. However, I'd like to point out that there are no "minimum" standards. There are only "standards".

If you really drill down to the bedrock of what a standard is, it's this:

1) a checklist
2) a definition of mastery for each skill on that check list

A student must be able, for example to clear a fully flooded mask repeatedly, correctly and fluidly. That's 1 item from the checklist (mask clear-fully flooded) plus the definition of mastery. Together that makes up one so called "performance requirement". In the PADI system there are couple of dozen or so "performance requirements" of this sort that comprise the standard for the open water course.

When put like that, how are you going to hold students to "a higher standard"? Is there a better definition of mastery than "repeatable, correct and fluid" when it comes to student training?

Maybe a "higher" standard is "completed while reciting Shakespeare" or "done to demonstration quality" or "performed while balancing a golf ball on one's nose" ...... What OTHER definition of mastery do we want to define in order for something to be a "higher" standard? I know some people are thinking that a "higher standard" means "performed while neutrally buoyant and/or swimming" but that's ALREADY IN THE CURRENT STANDARD!

I hear this term -- minimum standards -- often but I can't for the life of me understand what people mean by that.

To illustrate. A couple of years ago I was assisting a course where a DMC was still having trouble with mask clearing. The steps were correct but it was not repeatable and not fluid and she bolted repeatedly when she had to flood her mask. She indicated that this had been the case since her initial training.

Was she trained to LOWER standards? NO! Those are standards violations! The standard is quite clear that the DMC should not have been certified for OW until they could clear their mask repeatedly, correctly and fluidly. She should not have been certified for OW, for AOW or for Rescue and any specialties she had with this problem (although in some of those courses it may not have pinged on the radar).

It was only when she came to us for DM training that we intervened. She initially bombed out of DM training but was eventually retrained and the problems fixed so she could progress. The reason she was in this position was because some bozos had not done their job and had delayed dealing with this problem. The problem was passed down the chain until it got to the point that the diver was unable to progress any further without fixing it; all the while, putting her at risk.

So when someone says "higher" standard then ask yourself what they REALLY mean by that.

R..

 

[boulderjohn]

There can be a higher standard, and that idea is inherent in the PADI definition if you read the whole standard, which ends with the understanding that the level of mastery is as expected at that level of training.

It is similar to how you evaluate skills in any sport. When you evaluate a 12-year old playing a sport and decide that the player is excellent, your rating does not mean he or she will do well at that time in the top adult professional league.

When I teach a PADI tech class, students have to perform certain skills while holding decompression stops in horizontal trim to within 1.5 feet of the target depth. I do not expect that of OW students. When I have OW students remove and replace their masks in midwater, I do not have the same expectation of buoyancy control that I would of a tech diver doing the same thing.

 

[The Chairman]

I hear this term -- minimum standards

It's simple. NASE has minimum standards I MUST meet. I have additional standards that my students MUST meet. I am allowed to add ADDITIONAL standards as I see fit. If I felt that balancing a golf ball on your nose was essential before I put my name on your cert, then that would be an additional standard. Whether it's a "higher" standard is subject to discussion, but it's beyond the "minimum" standards for an OW course.