On the merits of cranking up standards.

[boulderjohn]

A lot of the most recent discussion is totally devoid of connection to actual facts. Here are a few to chew on for people making furthere posts. Much of this information on the beginning of Scuba comes from this history of NAUI.

• Scuba instruction in the U.S. started at the Scripps Institute in California in California in the early 1950s. Nearby Los Angeles County wanted to start an instructional program, and it sent Al Tillman to Scripps to learn how to do. He became the first Los Angeles County director and later founded NAUI when he wanted to take the model beyond that taxpayer-supported system.
• NAUI struggled to survive, earning little money from instruction. It relied on donations, and it existed for several years on a loan from Bill High.
• Needing to consolidate to save money, it decided in 1965 to focus on California, and it canceled an instructor training course scheduled for Chicago. The Chicago branch quit and formed a new agency--PADI. Seeing that the NAUI model was not working, PADI decided to seek new students where they could be found--in the retail stores.
• Soon after that, a trade organization called the National Association of Skin Diving Stores (NASDS) decided that was the best model as well, and they decided to teach scuba through the shops as well, changing their name by switching "Stores" to "Schools." (They are now SSI.) That was the beginning of the connection between retail and instruction.
• According to Tillman's reflections decades later, the average student coming out of OW training in the modern era is a better diver than the average instructor was back in the good old days.
• Back in the early days when things were done so beautifully, the dropout rate for scuba diving was enormous. People got certified and then quit diving. In an attempt to improve diver retention, Los Angeles County created a new certification--Advanced Open Water, the purpose of which was to introduce divers to different aspects of diving in order to improve interest. NAUI followed suit soon after that, and other agencies followed later.
• According to a thread started a couple of years ago in the Instructor to Instructor forum on ScubaBoard, the turnover rate for GUE instructors is HUGE. (That thread included actual numbers.)

 

[drrich2]

"The BSAC system is very much tailored towards club diving in the UK."

"The biggest difference with club diving (and BSAC) is that you are constantly mentored."

Put these 2 observations together and I see a key confounding variable in comparing the BSAC system with some mainstream systems popular in the U.S. such as PADI and SSI.

1.) A lot of U.S.-based divers mainly or exclusively dive in largely benign tropical conditions such as the Caribbean or Florida Keys. Some only dive very sporadically, such as on cruise ship stops.

2.) If I understand correctly, the U.K. local diving scene features colder, harsher conditions.

3.) A system tailored toward producing divers competent for local U.K. diving, with mentoring by people trained in & for that environment, may focus on producing a more capable diver.

So, if you want to compare BSAC and PADI or SSI, it might be more relevant to find PADI and SSI instructors/classes in areas like California who teach students interested in diving local conditions, such as shore diving California, with a similar investment of time, money & effort, and see how that compares.

I'm not suggesting BSAC will be lacking! I'm just saying a couple who got quickly certified PADI OW so they could do a 2-tank dive in St. Thomas on their honeymoon cruise in the Caribbean cannot rationally be compared to a BSAC-produced diver freshly trained with an eye toward local cold water wreck diving.

Richard.

 

[Diving Dubai]

@drrich2

Richard, you are over analyzing (or I have confused you)

The OW course for PADI, BSAC, SSI et al is classified as a CMAS 1 star, thus they are all equivalent

The Fundamental skills of Scuba diving are all the same. There may be different techniques used in teaching, but a BCD is still a BCD, a reg a reg, etc etc.

As I said earlier the commercial organisations have refined training to a time duration and a price point that is acceptable to the consumer.

A diver completing the basic 4 (or 5) OW dives will have roughly the same ability, whether they are in warm clear or cold murky (the enjoyment factor may be different)

So at this part of the training everything is equal. Okay BSAC teach nitrox from the off, the commercials could do it and should as it wouldn't add any significant time or cost.

The difference at this level is that BSAC ensure you get experience relative to the type of diving you will tend to do from the off, so Shore, boat current etc. Also BSAC require a minimum number of dives/time under water from completing one course to completing the next

The disadvantage with BSAC is that you can only complete the dives when the club has scheduled dives, and instructors are available as its all by volunteer so the initial course can take longer. Thus a BSAC diver will probably be more likely to continue, and the club forms a social network too aiding diver retention.

By the time you get to the end of Rescue in PADI SSI etc you have done this in 3 courses. with BSAC only 2 and yes BSAC teach decompression diving withing you certification levels, and they teach DSMB, shot line and anchor lines - because you get to use them. But the end product knowledge wise will roughly be the same

A BSAC diver will probably have done more dives and had the influence of mentors as well as having to take more time to get there as Zero to hero can't exist. Thus there will be a disparity in diver performance between a newly minted PADI/SSI Rescue diver who's gone from cert to cert and a BSAC diver who has had to get experience in between each cert

A BSAC Sports diver and PADI/SSI Rescue are still both considered CMAS 2 star


So in summary, a newly minted OW student can be directly compared, the deviation of experience and skills though starts at that point. The commercial route is faster and costs more and you get less hours underwater being instructed/mentored The BSAC route takes a heck of a lot longer due to the availability of instructors, but costs a lot less and you have further skills embedded within your training which are extra certs in the commercial world.

 

[Edward3c]

"The BSAC system is very much tailored towards club diving in the UK."

"The biggest difference with club diving (and BSAC) is that you are constantly mentored."

Put these 2 observations together and I see a key confounding variable in comparing the BSAC system with some mainstream systems popular in the U.S. such as PADI and SSI.

1.) A lot of U.S.-based divers mainly or exclusively dive in largely benign tropical conditions such as the Caribbean or Florida Keys. Some only dive very sporadically, such as on cruise ship stops.

2.) If I understand correctly, the U.K. local diving scene features colder, harsher conditions.

3.) A system tailored toward producing divers competent for local U.K. diving, with mentoring by people trained in & for that environment, may focus on producing a more capable diver.

So, if you want to compare BSAC and PADI or SSI, it might be more relevant to find PADI and SSI instructors/classes in areas like California who teach students interested in diving local conditions, such as shore diving California, with a similar investment of time, money & effort, and see how that compares.

I'm not suggesting BSAC will be lacking! I'm just saying a couple who got quickly certified PADI OW so they could do a 2-tank dive in St. Thomas on their honeymoon cruise in the Caribbean cannot rationally be compared to a BSAC-produced diver freshly trained with an eye toward local cold water wreck diving.

Richard.

Whilst I welcome the complements for the BSAC training regime I warn my students that when they first encounter warm water, with good vis, they are novices to that environment. Its to easy for them to go deep (no visual guide to depth) or stay down to long (improved gas consumption in warm water). There are some cracking good PADI trained UK divers.

Getting back to the OP’s question.

Society has changed over the last 40 years. People are looking for the next adventure fix, once done move on to the next; people are also time poor.

That presents club based organisations, like BSAC, with a challenge? Maybe more than one.

1. As a diving club our primary purpose is to go diving, where members get their training isn’t so important [blasphemy to the old die-hard Diving Officers].

2. Divers trained by other agencies tend not to be taught how to plan diving trips, i.e. read tide-tables, weather maps or organise boats.

3. In addition we need people to be taught how to run the clubs.

 

[rivers]

C. Cg

@drrich2

and they teach DSMB, shot line and anchor lines - because you get to use them. But the end product knowledge wise will roughly be the same

DSMB deployment is now taught during PADI OW. And (at least in the UK) PADI OW are taught how to properly descend down a shot line.

 

[tbone1004]

But you are, and you know it.

With all the comparisons you've made between PADI and GUE, one that you seemed to have missed is that PADI insists that its instructors demonstrate respect for other agencies and their instructors. Maybe you only have access to the PADI website, and not the instructor manual. If so, let me help you out. This comes directly from the PADI Member Code of Practice:

"As a PADI Member, you agree to the following... Not disparage the PADI organization, PADI Members or any other dive industry professionals."

If all agencies held their members to a similar standard, perhaps it would be easier to have a productive conversation that could lead to real improvement.

do you know the definition of disparage? I haven't disparaged PADI, I have simply made observations. The student vs instructor comment was based on observing many PADI instructors, their buoyancy, trim, propulsion techniques, situational awareness, etc etc. are not the same. There are many many exceptions, but if you look at new instructors for PADI, especially those they like to brag about that went from an OW diver to instructor in less than a year, it's just an observation. PADI has chosen to rely on their course curriculum and literature to compensate for green instructors. It is perfectly fine because they actually have made it work. Other agencies have not been able to do this, and as mentioned on here by John, when you have weak instructors without the support from the agencies *in his case NAUI*, the whole thing falls apart. PADI chose to make money, and they are very good at it. By designing their courses as well as they have, then are able to compensate for green instructors. It is simply the model they chose, it is not disrespecting it, quite the opposite if you read the rest of my posts where I said that the industry wouldn't exist as we know it if agencies like PADI didn't figure out how to make money at it. There is no disparaging PADI, and those that say that every PADI instructor is actually a quality diver is delusional.
For anyone curious, the reason I chose PADI over any of the other agencies is because they have been far more successful at their chosen model of instruction. They are the best agency to be able to compare to GUE because both are incredibly successful for very different reasons. I can't actually speak highly about most of the other agencies, so at least PADI has a lot of things worth respecting, and not being a PADI instructor, frankly jealous of, especially the support they have for their instructors, and the literature that they have available.

 

[KevinNM]

A hah hah serious comment I heard in cave country was that GUE was essentially founded so JJ could get dive buddies and support divers on expeditions without having to personally train them to dive the way that was safe and effective given what he was doing.

Every GUE instructor or intern I've talked to has an astonishing amount of dive experience. It's so different than the typical person that PADI instructor training advertisements seem to be geared for.

 

[VR78]

Two observations that I have made on local club-based instruction (CMAS system though, not BSAC) are the utter lack of instructor progress and especially the lack of QC. Both boil down to club diving being just that, club diving. Same people, same quarry, same gear, same skill set, year after year.

 

[EFX]

Interesting discussion, but please remind me again: what's the problem you all are trying to solve? You seem to be in solution mode. I am not sure we have a problem that needs solving...

and after four more pages I still don't know if there's a problem. We have comparisons between agency's (PADI vs. NAUI vs. GUE), between instructors (bad vs. good, those that meet min standards vs. those that go beyond), between resources (deep vs. shallow pools), between divers (motivated vs. non-motivated), between business models (corporate/profit vs. club/non-profit), between content (yesterday vs. today) and even motive (greed vs. non-greed). There's a lot of finger pointing but nothing that actually answers the question of the OP.

To answer the question we need to first understand the goal(s) of the agency we want to analyze. Then, define the criteria to meet the goal(s) and finally, to critique the diver to determine if the skills demonstrated meet the criteria. It does no good to compare a GUE to a PADI OW diver. These agencies have different goals and attract different divers with different expectations and mindsets. We can argue all day long why a PADI OW diver should be able to hover like a GUE diver one foot off the reef but how does that answer the quality question? (It answers the criteria question, which IMO doesn't match with PADI goals, but that's another topic).

As a PADI trained diver I can address the question based on my experience within the PADI S&R course. The specialty called for three dives during which we would run circular, increasing square, and back and forth rectangular patters. There was one other student with me. Each dive was only 20 minutes long and neither of us reversed roles (nav vs. lookout or line holder vs. searcher). IMO, this is poor quality because we didn't get to practice the other role. I found out later the dives were cut short because of time issues with the instructor. The other courses I took the quality was average.

PADI did get feedback from me on my AOW via an e-mail survey. Although this doesn't substitute for actual instructor monitoring it was a step toward monitoring the quality of the instruction.

 

[kr2y5]

and after four more pages I still don't know if there's a problem.

Let me clear up the misunderstanding. This thread was primarily directed at people, who feel that some aspect of the quality of scuba instruction needs improvement (but of course, everyone is welcome to comment). There appear to be a great number of people, who seem to feel that some agency X is not doing a good enough job with respect to some aspect Y of scuba instruction, and have been implying that an improvement is needed. In the mind of every person, who feels this way, and cares about it enough to share their opinion on SB, there are some concrete X and Y that they disapprove, which represents a specific problem statement. This may be different for everyone, and that's OK, I would not expect all divers to share the same concerns. The purpose of this thread was to solicit individual opinions, and to try to put a little more constructive spin on it, by asking "what specifically agency X can do to improve Y" (as opposed to "why I think Y is important and X sucks at it"). If you don't share the same level of frustration as others, or if you don't think there's anything that can be done, I think that's easy... from your perspective, the answer is simply "nothing" (a perfectly valid answer).

To answer the question we need to first understand the goal(s) of the agency we want to analyze.

I don't think that's necessarily a prerequisite to answering the question. It could be that the specific goals adopted by the agency are getting in the way of increasing the quality of instruction. Of course, you can argue that no agency will change their goals based on a ScubaBoard thread started by some schmuck without his pants on, so the discussion is moot, and that's a valid concern, but that's quite OK, it wasn't really my intention to incite a revolution, just to have a discussion about this topic with a bit more constructive spin to it.