Oversight of Dive shops by Dive Agencies (PADI, NAUI, etc.)

[neil]

I'm sure I didn't see the whole thing in great detail, and the guy who sent it prefaced the thing by pointing out that it is somewhat vague without also having the NAUI teaching philosophy to go with it ( I hope I'm not misrepresenting his comment).

I wonder then if it's possible that NAUI encourages their instructors to go beyond the published minimum standards out of recognition that those written standards are somewhat vague. And conversly, PADI doesn't feel the need to make this encouragement out of a belief that their standards are more comprehensive.

Thanks

The "vagueness" of the standards was perhaps overstated.
NAUI explicitly suggests that instructors exceed the minimum standards. While the popular word is that PADI says not to exceed standards, I've never seen where it is expressly forbidden.
I don't want to take up a lot of space here with this, but the NAUI standards seem vague as they allow for a large variance in diving styles, conditions, gear setups, availability of teaching materials, etc. As far as in-water skills go, the standards are fairly clear as to what is required. For academic content, you'd have to see the test and text along with the standards.
There is a NAUI Credo and Code of Ethics which you subscribe to which explains some of the philosophy. Nothing mysterious, just some statements concerning committment to students, the public, and ethical conduct. For instance: "We believe NAUI instructors may exeed NAUI standards in ways that do not jeopardize student safety. Examples include exceeding the number of required open water dives or increasing the academic content."

Hope that helps a bit.

 

[sytech]

J.R.,

I think it's very illuminating that in this thread there's a distinction being made between the purpose to "promote diving" and to "certify SAFE divers"

Why would one even separate the two? Moreover PADI "promotes diving" and presumably certifies "SAFE divers".

Can you think of any option BUT to certify "SAFE" divers?

Sy

One more thing...

Regarding "which is the better agency"... that would depend on the question.

If the purpose of dive agencies is to promote diving... I'd have to say "PADI"

If the purpose is to certify SAFE divers... I couldn't pick... the material from either agency seems to give sufficient information... if properly taught by the 'professionals' to accomplish that goal... the techniques may differ... the approaches may differ... but the net result SEEMS to be the same.

 

[sytech]

Mark,

You are correct. That was my point in beginning this thread and there has been all kinds discussion on everything BUT that particular point.

I did receive an answer from NAUI regarding my question about what actually constitutes a NAUI Nitrox Course and it confirms my belief about this whole topic:

FROM NAUI

"I have inserted NAUI Standard for the EAXn Diver course for you. It is
below my reply. NAUI Standards do not require that NAUI's book or any
book be issued as part of the course (NAUI's Instructor guide covers
all
material presented in the textbook). NAUI does recommend that its'
textbook be used for all classes. However, many instructors price the
class lower to save their students money and offer the NAUI textbook as
an option for the class at an additional cost".

My reply to NAUI was:

"I'm just somewhat surprised at the "flexibility" given
to Instructors in that they can either supply or offer
the textbook either as part of the course or not or
that the student can purchase the textbook on his own
or not.

One would think that it would be mandatory that some
materials (photocopies, dive chart etc..) would HAVE
to be incuded in the course given the nature of the
subject matter. Nothing was included in mine. When I
made an issue of it the Dive shop owner then agreed to
give me 2 DVD's, 1 which is unwatchabale and one which
is a bunch of files. He waited to give me them right
before I left to return to the States and I wasn't aware
of their uselessness till I got home. I was conned
you could say. My fault in that regard.

Given the sleazy actions of the Dive Shop owner it makes me wonder what assurance do I have that I even took a
NAUI course given that there were no materials
included in my course whatsoever. I think it's more
accurate to say that I took "Roger's" course as
opposed to a NAUI course. How can you assure me that
I in fact took the "NAUI Nitrox Course". I can't
prove it and I doubt you can either. I pay Roger,
Roger pays for NAUI "allegedly" having provided a "Course" and
sends my name in to NAUI attesting to me having taken
that "course. Given the absence of any corroborating
course materials it's hard to know for sure.

Yes, I will be getting the NAUI cert. card in the
mail soon (I hope) but it's quite possible that your
organization issues cert. cards for training that you
can't even be certain was part of the NAUI curriculum
altogether.

I will say though, that the Instructor "seemed" to
know his stuff, but as a "student" how am I qualified
to asses his competence? There's a saying that "you
don't know what you don't know" and I think it's true
in this case. Not to beat a dead horse but without an
accompanying booklet or pamphlet from NAUI how would I
even be in a position to know how well he trained me?

In any event this whole matter has to do with
"Oversight of Dive Shops by Cert. Agencies" which I
started on ScubaBoard several days ago. I've raised several issues
which may seem "theoretical" but I believe are quite possible and somewhat probable.

I realize that it's difficult to "police" your affiliates, especially out of the country but based on what I've seen and experienced (especially with PADI, which I
will never again use) there's a "whole lot of shakin' goin' on" regarding adherence to Agencies' guidelines not to mention that the guidelines from the Agenices themselves seem to be way,way too flexible and give the instructors way too much latitude."


Sy

You know, if you go all the way back to the start of this thread, the original poster was raising an interesting question that got left in the dust by -- forgive me -- a barroom brawl about whose certifying agency has bigger, um, manuals.

How far do any of the certifying agencies go to ensure that out of country DOs are operating within their prescribed standards? I buy it that they depend on travelers' reports, but then what? Are there published instances of SSI or NAUI or PADI "de-certifying" an operation? Are those made public, like the restaurants that get closed down for health code violations? If not, why not?

 

[Walter]

No Walter. It only has something to do with what I asked if you cut the question off in mid sentance (as you did), and reply to only the words that make up the question you wished had been asked. Why else would you only quote and respond to half a sentance? I recognize that it's an effective tool for people with an agenda. Sometimes you need to find a way to say the thing you came to say, and if you can tie it somehow (however tenuously) to what's being said, so much the better.

You object solely because you didn't want to hear it. That's OK, lots of PADI instructors don't like hearing what I have to say.

While the popular word is that PADI says not to exceed standards, I've never seen where it is expressly forbidden.

It all depends on what you mean by exceeding standards. PADI's requirements to keep particular skills in particular pool sessions make it difficult to teach things in a logical, easy order, but it is possible to get creative to accomplish the goal. That issue aside, you can teach above standards. You can add material. You cannot make the additional material required. Some other agencies allow instructors to add requirements. For example, PADI requires 4 open water dives. As a PADI instructor, you can offer 5 or 6, but you cannot require them for certification. NAUI requires 5 open water dives (one may be a skin dive). As a NAUI instructor you can offer 6 or 7, but you also have the option of making them required prior to issuing a certification.

 

[Karibelle]

PADI's requirements to keep particular skills in particular pool sessions make it difficult to teach things in a logical, easy order, but it is possible to get creative to accomplish the goal.

That presumes that you don't think the skills' order as outlined in the PADI sessions are in a logical order. If you consider that within each module skills can be moved around, I think that they *are* logical.

What would you change, in order to make them more logical?

kari

 

[Walter]

That presumes that you don't think the skills' order as outlined in the PADI sessions are in a logical order. If you consider that within each module skills can be moved around, I think that they *are* logical.

What would you change, in order to make them more logical?

kari

You presume correctly. I'll dig out the standards and make you a list this evening. The problem is there are skills that build to others. Some of the foundation skills are not presented in early sessions. You already have the roof before digging the foundation.

 

[serambin]

Walter, do you remember the 'good old days'. When they taught you to dive with a facemask blacked out and where pool sessions started with 'laps'? Back in the day when many instructors were former UDT divers or Seals? Well, I want to forget them. There is nothing positive in abusing students.

How much training is required to be a 'safe diver'? A Week? A month?

Safe is a relative term and IMHO it has a lot more to do with experience after the C-Card arrives than the number of cert dives. In the 70's, training was more stringent, but fatalities per dive where higher. I don’t think it was gear that made diving less safe, but the attitude of the macho divers of the day (self included) going places where no sane man had gone before. I can dive deeper and longer than you can. Right up to the point where I die.

If a certifying agency wants to promote itself as a 'tougher agency' with harder courses, great, let those who wish chose to participate, but it will not be my wife or daughter because they would quit. If you are on a holiday and the resort you’re staying in offers a 2-day intro to scuba, why not try it. If you like it, you can always go back for more instructions later when you are at home. This is what perpetuates OUR sport, not cave divers, or people wanting to dive the Doria, just ordinary people trying something different.

The availability of additional courses to improve diver competence is great. DIR, GUE, SSI, are great, but the vast majority of divers want to go on a few dive trips a year, to their idea of paradise, and enjoy themselves. They ain’t Cousteau, but they don't drown either. Shaky on the dive boat, trying to remember what to donext, yes, but they survive and live to dive another day.

 

[J.R.]

J.R.,

I think it's very illuminating that in this thread there's a distinction being made between the purpose to "promote diving" and to "certify SAFE divers"

Why would one even separate the two? Moreover PADI "promotes diving" and presumably certifies "SAFE divers".

Can you think of any option BUT to certify "SAFE" divers?

Hey Sy -

Wow... a good question. Yea, I have to agree that there does seem to be a split as you describe... and while I can't give any kind of authorative answer, let me give you my take:

The start of problem lies in the definition of "safe"... and then we need to define what 'promote' means...

The 'safety' problem:

What *really* constitutes a "safe diver"... what are the basics that are necessary? How much training is necessary... do we have or want to require the resources to develop custom training for each and every student who's ability and ambition will differ, to varying degrees, from every other student? Are we will willing to say "NO" to people who just can't make the cut? What constitutes a legitimate 'standard'? How much responsibility do dive instructors/ops want to take on themselves for OUR safety... how much CAN they legitimately take on? Do we as divers REALLY want them to... or are we more happy having fewer people make our judgements for us?

... and, at what point does a diver become COMPETENT to make the above decisions???

For example, you or I might say... if ya' can't swim 200 yards you shouldn't be a diver... but a guy who can only dog-paddle 50 feet will argue... "Yea... well... ya' have all the equipment and if you're only reef diving you're not really swimming anyway..." Who's right? Under the right set of parameters either CAN be... but which is the smartest route to take? There will always be the debate between "Want" and "Need"... this is simply one manifestation.

The 'promotion' question:

Firstly, le'ts bag the ephemistic expression "promote"... if we're talking the commercial industry the goal is "growth"... the tool to achieve growth is 'promotion'... You and I, as divers, 'promote' our sport... businesses 'merchandise'... very similar in form... very different in focus and purpose (now, before ANYBODY get's wonkey... I'm not seeing an evil... just pointing out a difference...)

Now, in today's world, the ecconomic stakes are higher... to some degree the financial pressures to 'promote' have been assisted by a vast improvement in diving technology... It seems like, to continue to 'grow the industry' accessability must increase... more divers... more merchandise... more dive trips... more, more, more... absolutely great on one hand... but growth comes with its own set of ecconomic issues...

In order to keep the cash flow moving to support the infrastructure of diving diving will either become more expensive... or expense can be controlled by increasing the number of participants (which *should*, theoretically, increase demand)... so how do you 'grow' this base? You make diving more 'friendly' and 'accessable'... (I'd point out that in the early years of microcomputers the big key phrase was "user-friendly"... there was a reason for this...).

How do you make diving more 'accessable'... put it within the grasp of 'everyman'... reduce the risk factor to the greatest extent possible... and sell. How do you 'speed up' the training process to accomodate everybody's 'busy schedules'... how do you 'cut out the unnecessary steps' so they can get there faster? What's *really needed* and what is redundant? What is the minimum you can package (for ease of delivery) and not endanger your students?

So... once you start looseing up and cleaning the 'not REALLY necessary' issues out of dive training to 'streamline' things and 'increase accessability' to the sport (hey... if you never go below 60 feet... given SAC on a single 80... you *should* never need to deco right? So... why teach it... let's save that for "Advanced"...) ... it can all become a very slippery slope that is subject to debate by the professionals to determine 'how safe is safe enough'...

I don't think ANYBODY is trying to make diving "unsafe"... but I do think that, under the desire to make diving *accessable* to all (and, just coincidentally, increase the spending on the habit which will stimulate the diving marketplace)... some corners get cut that shouldn't be... but that is, of course, simply my own opinon...

Sometimes growth has to be sacrificed for safety... Safety, is normally viewed as a 'cost center'... the 'profit' of it being indirect in the form of reduced liability costs... but safety costs. The sense I get from this thread and some stuff I've read that is similar is the debate of "how safe is safe enough"... if you're a conciencious instructor... at what point do YOU consider somebody 'safe'??

Let's bring it down to us "just divers"... when you rig up... have you ever looked at your insta-buddy and wondered, "Am I gonna' be safe with this guy?"

If ya' note, I didn't and WON'T get into the debate on which dive agency produces better divers... because it's my opinion, as a student, that the quality of diver that gets put out has much more to do with the quality of the student who goes in... followed by the quality of the instructor... THEN followed by the quality of the class material. Bet you'll never hear a dive agency say that... why... simple... it wouldn't 'promote' diving...

Personally, I think MOST instructors and the agencies they represent do a darned good job. I also believe the the biggest problem with diving today ISN'T the agency... or the instructor... it's the student. Too much ego and attitude being brought in because they're convinced that diving is a walk in the park... or because they read a book and think they know more than the instructor.

I guess I see "safety" and "promotion" like two guys on a chain gang... they're separate entities... but extremely dependant on each other. They may, at times be at odds with each other but they can't break the chain that binds them... and accomodation is their only real tool for survival.

Somehow I feel like I'm still not *really* communication the concepts in my head clearly... I hope you can sort through all of the above and see what I'm trying to say...

 

[tedtim]

It all depends on what you mean by exceeding standards. PADI's requirements to keep particular skills in particular pool sessions make it difficult to teach things in a logical, easy order, but it is possible to get creative to accomplish the goal. That issue aside, you can teach above standards. You can add material. You cannot make the additional material required. Some other agencies allow instructors to add requirements. For example, PADI requires 4 open water dives. As a PADI instructor, you can offer 5 or 6, but you cannot require them for certification. NAUI requires 5 open water dives (one may be a skin dive). As a NAUI instructor you can offer 6 or 7, but you also have the option of making them required prior to issuing a certification.

Walter, perhaps I misread your statement or the intent of your statement.

If a NAUI instructor decides that they "require" demonstration of skills that are in addition to the standards, does that not change the standard itself? Alternately, does that not introduce a number of different standards for the same course? If they teach more material than is required by the standards I am all for it, but if they demand a student to perform something that they feel is "required," but not in the course standard, then I have some difficulties understanding the system. This type of system, at least by my understanding of the description, will produce OW divers of varying consistency because of instructor "isms." (this is my description of what happens when an instructor demads a level of performance above the published standard just to obtain the certification) If a student demonstrates the performance required to the published standards, then why should they not be recognized as achieving the course requirements? I have seen this approach before in another field and we had to pull the instructors aside to discuss the concept of a standard with them.

As for extra dives, I am all for it, but the purpose and how it relates to the course standard must be understood by all. AFAIK, the PADI standards are a minimum of four open water dives. I have been a DM on a number of courses where the instructor has indicated to the student that they must return for more dives because they did not achieve the standard. The requirement here was to demonstrate the level of skill required by the course standard, not to complete additional dives. Now, I do have some problems with the consistency of instructors that I have seen and favour those that are not satisfied with a single demonstration as indicating the concept of "mastery."

I do agree with you that the PADI prescriptive approach for teaching leaves little flexibility for the instructor. This is one reason why I chose not to go down the instructor path (not the only reason).

I would also argue that instructors do not issue certifications. The agency they represent issues the certification based on the recommendation of the instructor. I checked my c-card and it states "This diver has satisfactorily met the standars for this certification level as set forth by PADI." I may seem like a small point, but I think is important to note.

 

[Walter]

Walter, do you remember the 'good old days'. When they taught you to dive with a facemask blacked out and where pool sessions started with 'laps'? Back in the day when many instructors were former UDT divers or Seals? Well, I want to forget them.

Nope, I've merely heard stories about them. Is there a point in there somewhere?

There is nothing positive in abusing students.

I completely agree.

How much training is required to be a 'safe diver'? A Week? A month?

That will vary depending on the student's ability, experience and willingness to learn.

Safe is a relative term and IMHO it has a lot more to do with experience after the C-Card arrives than the number of cert dives.

Actually, it has a lot more to do with the diver's confidence in their own abilities than either number of certification dives or their experience after the card arrives. Students need to learn how to solve problems; they need to know how to breathe to avoid panic. Experience after the card arrives is helpful, but that can also be a house of cards if there's been no actual teaching of how to deal with problems.

In the 70's, training was more stringent, but fatalities per dive where higher. I don’t think it was gear that made diving less safe, but the attitude of the macho divers of the day (self included) going places where no sane man had gone before. I can dive deeper and longer than you can. Right up to the point where I die.

There is absolutely no way you can know if fatalities per dive have gone up, gone down or stayed the same. No one knows how many dives are made annually, so no one knows what the fatality rate might be. Just for the sake of discussion, let's assume fatalities per dive have declined (I'm not conceding that to be the case). Remember, while standards were higher in the 70s, so was the % of divers who received absolutely no training at all. Your point is pointless.

If a certifying agency wants to promote itself as a 'tougher agency' with harder courses, great, let those who wish chose to participate, but it will not be my wife or daughter because they would quit. If you are on a holiday and the resort you’re staying in offers a 2-day intro to scuba, why not try it.

I don't see anyone trying to be "tough." I agree there was a time when some instructors didn't teach. Standards were high, but some instructors taught by the sink or swim method. They didn't teach, they weeded out folks who couldn't figure it out for themselves. I know of no one who proposes such an approach to instruction.

Classes with higher standards are actually easier. They are easier because students have more time to work through problems with a patient teacher, not a DI. Skills are broken down into more steps, so they are easier to achieve. Positive feedback in those smaller steps provides a source of accomplishment and justifiably builds self confidence. A student learns how to fix small problems prior to them becoming big ones. Weaker students learn much better with a more comprehensive approach. The typical class will either certify weak students who aren't ready to be diving or wash them out. A more comprehensive approach will help those weaker students get to the point where they are excellent divers. When I was teaching, my business card stated, "We Specialize in Cowards!" The approach you write off as abusing students is actually the kinder, gentler way to learn.

If you like it, you can always go back for more instructions later when you are at home. This is what perpetuates OUR sport, not cave divers, or people wanting to dive the Doria, just ordinary people trying something different.

It doesn't work that way. The things left out are never addressed in future classes.

The availability of additional courses to improve diver competence is great. DIR, GUE, SSI, are great, but the vast majority of divers want to go on a few dive trips a year, to their idea of paradise, and enjoy themselves. They ain’t Cousteau, but they don't drown either. Shaky on the dive boat, trying to remember what to donext, yes, but they survive and live to dive another day.

They survive because they are rescued in alarming numbers. Once upon a time, I worked on a dive charter in the Keys. My record was 12 rescues in one day, one of those was an instructor. I rescued one guy 5 times in one weekend. Yes, there is a big problem with the current state of diver training.