On the merits of cranking up standards.

[tbone1004]

If you go back to the old training and standards .... People will fail and give up on diving or not even try it... Takes not good for the CASH COW that diving has become...

Jim...

and that was the point that I was trying to make. The "old school" training is IMHO much better, but it just isn't profitable. Life is a bunch of pros and cons, the con of making money is overall training quality is sacrificed due to time and volume etc etc as has been discussed, but the pro is those of us that are committed to becoming good divers have a lot more diversity in gear, dive centers, etc etc.

Perfect example in cave country. Way back when the divers overall were a lot better than they are now, but there weren't a lot of them. Peacock didn't have steps, picnic tables, gold line, two dive shops within basically walking distance of the spring, etc etc. The backplates were all DIY, wings were custom made, lights were custom made, etc etc. Due to the volume and money that you could make, manufacturers started developing gear, agencies started installing conveniences that we all take for granted. that is the pro side of all of this. It is a balance, and PADI has found that balance, be profitable, train safe divers, note not good divers, but divers safe enough to have enough fun to keep the industry moving....

 

[BRT]

A three day course seems ridiculous. I understand that in certain places, shops and instructors cater to the customer base that only wants to spend three days on being trained.
I take two full weekends, along with Mon-through-Friday nights during the week between those two weekends.
I am not the only one doing this.

Luckily for me, I teach independently, and am fortunate to have students that want to commit that time towards learning.
I would not be interested in teaching classes comprised of students that wanted to "get it done" in three days.

Maybe there should be less catering to the customer, or market desire for these three days courses, and instead focus on a more comprehensive training experience.
To do that takes much more time than three days in my opinion.

Perhaps if shops would tell customers to come back when they had more that three days to commit to training, the trend would reverse.

Or.......Maybe customers started asking for, or demanding the three day classes, because shops started dangling it in their faces......if you offer it, they will come.

I sometimes try to tell my customers what they want, but I back off quickly when they disagree. You can advise them but they do pay all the bills.

 

[--tom--]

If I compare the old style I was taught, (early 80's), there was a lot more pool practice (PT) and a lot more physics--why your lungs explode, not just that they would, you know, Boyle's Law, Dalton's Law, Henry's Law et al. There were also endurance swimming with gear on, (snorkel on the surface x amount of laps, etc.) I think there was 5 or 6 open water dives for certification. And of course, the tables (Navy tables then).

So what could we improve? Probably repetition, clear your mask 20 times, out air drills 20 times, etc. Give the student some muscle memory, but it would be boring....6 dives instead of 4? sure, but again many students don't have fitness level to do 3 shore dives a day in my home location, so an extra day at the ocean.

After all that, what percentage of divers practice the basics after the class? How many reread the OW manual to pick up the details? Therein, IMHO, lies the problem, less a problem of instruction and more of forgetting the basics. 10 dives per year for 15 years with no review, the diver may not remember how to do an out of air drill if the issue comes up. He/She may have had a dive-god teaching them, but without semi frequent skill reinforcement, review of the remedial, humans will lose the some of the skill, and discover the loss when the skill is critically needed.

So while I appreciate the discussion on "cranking up the standards"; I believe it becomes meaningless if the student doesn't maintain the standards post certification dives.

 

[Hawkwood]

....

So while I appreciate the discussion on "cranking up the standards"; I believe it becomes meaningless if the student doesn't maintain the standards post certification dives.

Best comment ever in the continual regurgitation of "improving training" threads.

 

[Bert van den Berg]

I'm 68 years old, not an instructor but have been diving for 47 years, solo certified and have been averaging over 100 dives per year the past four years. The wife decided to get PADI certified at age 64 and asked me to take the OW class with her because she trusts me and wanted me with her. So I have had an opportunity to see the training recently first hand.

Initially I believed the PADI OW training to be minimal and surprised that there were not more diver deaths soon after OW certification. But the facts are that not many newly certified divers kill themselves. I don't know why but assume that most newly certified divers probably realize that there are holes in their training and act accordingly while gaining experience.

My two cents worth.

 

[boulderjohn]

Initially I believed the PADI OW training to be minimal and surprised that there were not more diver deaths soon after OW certification. But the facts are that not many newly certified divers kill themselves. I don't know why but assume that most newly certified divers probably realize that there are holes in their training and act accordingly while gaining experience.

Here are some interesting facts to deal with.

• There are many, many more divers in the world today compared to 40 years ago. We don't know how many, but published certification numbers over the years indicate the number must be much higher..
• There are far fewer deaths per year according to DAN statistics over the last decade than there were in the early 70s, when those statistics were first being recorded. I am talking raw numbers--not percentages.
• Put those two together (many more total divers; many fewer fatalities), and you can draw a conclusion about the change in fatality percentages over the decades. What was the cause in this significant increase in diver safety? That can be argued, but the statistics do not provide any support for a belief that diving is less safe today than it was in the supposed golden age of instruction several decades ago.

 

[scubadada]

Forty six years ago, when I was 1st certified, I dived with a J valve, no SPG, no safe second, no depth gauge (though we theoretically knew the approximate depth of our sites), no proper BC, and old Navy tables. Being in Southern California, nearly all my dives were from shore, sometimes quite challenging, and never guided. John's comments, above, do not surprise me.

Today, everyone has a SPG (analog or digital) a safe second, a depth gauge, and a BC. Most have a computer, nitrox is very commonly used. When I got recertified in 1997, all this contemporary gear was in use with the exception of computers and nitrox. The OW class I was in with my son was quite good, emphasized safety and the proper use of the equipment. Most dives immediately following certification are more likely under relatively forgiving circumstances and are more likely to be guided. Again, no surprise in John's comments

 

[DevonDiver]

The "old school" training is IMHO much better, but it just isn't profitable.

....and there's the big irony...

Who exactly profits from the 'new school' training?

The instructors who are all driving around in BMWs? On comparable income to instructors and training professional in other pursuits?k

The dive center owners, who become millionaires?

No......

Only the agencies profit from this..... huge profits. Everyone else involved lives poor....

It is a balance, and PADI has found that balance, be profitable, train safe divers, note not good divers, but divers safe enough to have enough fun to keep the industry moving....

I'd deny that they are 'safe' divers. Recreational diving is inherently very, very safe. It is made more so by (increasingly, on a global bass) using 'professionals' to shepherd and protect divers.... to apply their training for them.

That any divers die when recreational diving (outside of medical issues), is inexcusable. It points to gross failure in the training and control of recreational diving activities. It is badly trained divers who themselves create the hazards and situations that kill them....when the activity itself should be very benign, survivable and safe.

 

[Bert van den Berg]

The agencies are profit driven and their business model appears to be working well. While it may be a bit sad that the profits are not shared more equitably this is not an uncommon situation when there are large numbers of people willing to accept low wages to work at a job they enjoy. The horse racing industry is another one that comes to mind. My daughter and her partner don't make minimum wage but wouldn't do anything else because they love the lifestyle.

I am very impressed by the professionalism of the skippers, instructors and guides working the dive boats. They go out every day with whoever shows up and manage to not only keep them alive but show them a good time.

Getting back to the topic, the agencies are doing a pretty good job and I don't see a pressing need for cranking up the standards.

 

[drrich2]

"Who exactly profits from the 'new school' training?"

So how would a return to 'old school' methods differ from this? It's a relative thing. There seems a measure of consensus that across-the-board big increases in time & standards (e.g.: knowledge/skill/performance mastery) would lead to a substantial decline in the # of people entering the hobby. Even if these courses cost the student more money, they'd also cost the instructor more time & effort. A number of instructors are 'dual vocation' and some have families, so taking up more of their time is a cost, too.

'Back in the day,' was the position of scuba instructor lucrative?

How many GUE Fundamentals instructors drive Beamers? Seems there are so few of them in the U.S. that if there's a demand for highly rigorous training of that nature, they ought to be able to 'write their own checks,' so to speak. I realize Fundies is NOT basic OW by any sane standard, but even indirectly the demand for this training & its profitability may be analogous enough to offer some insight.

Also, technical diving, especially cave diving I would think, it often taught to a high standard. Seems if the new school approach to training is so bad on recreational OW instructors, that there'd be a mass migration of these guys into the longer, more demanding and lucrative technical diving teaching market...if teaching tec. is lucrative. Is it?

My point is, if we're going to condemn the economic model of modern mainstream OW training (e.g.: that the agencies are enriched while instructors & dive shops eke out a subsistence living, if that), we must ask, do the alternatives pay more?

Richard.