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

[Walter]

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

Perhaps you haven't.

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.

The standards are minimum standards. They are not absolutes. With this method, you don't get McDonalds, but you do get lots of variety in fine dining. I know which I'd choose. Others like McDonalds.

 

[J.R.]

There is one more point that probably should be made between the institutional 'safety v. promotion' thing...

Once a diver has their C-card... they're pretty much on their own. They can buy whatever gear they want... buy a compressor if they want... dive where and how they want. Nobody is going to pull their C-card. Safety now becomes THEIR responsibility and theirs alone. My perspective is that an agency has a duty to present the best "foundational base of knowledge" they're capable of and ensure that what they present is accurate and thorough... and they have some responsibility to ensure their students "get it" before cutting them loose. (However... what defines "best foundational base" is gonna' have to be made by somebody with much more experience than myself...)

Agencies can OFFER further training... but the diver has to make the decision to invest in them and find their value... Agencies can be a source of information... but the diver has to pursue it.

If you take your tanks in to be filled... the shop will check the inspection dates... partially for your protection... even more so for theirs. Divers SHOULD get their regs and stuff checked yearly... but... if they don't... who knows?

The BEST any agency or dive shop can do is to encourage safety... and to try to give student the best knowledge and tool set they can before they cut them loose to do what they're going to do.

A dive op can say... "If you don't dive MY way you don't dive with me." Is that a dive op looking out for your safety? It might be percieved that way... might even be that way to some degree... or it might simply be a dive op making the same assessment you would with an 'insta-buddy'... ie, "Do I really want the potential liability of hanging with this idiot."

There's probably more to all of this than I can see... and I might well be missing something... I really *don't* have all the answers... but I've always been a believer that my safety is my problem... education is the step to knowledge... knowledge is what keeps you alive.

Promotion is a vision... and anybody can sell a dream... Safety is a personal responsibility. The closest an agency can come, in my opinion, to 'ensuring' safety is by being willing to physically and mentally challenge students and fail those who don't measure up.... to be willing to say "NO"... and "NO" isn't "promotion"...

Dang... still feel like I'm coming up short on my response... sorry...

 

[mjatkins]

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.

Walter, you are wrong, and this post only highlights the depth to which you have missed the point.

To recap once again for you (please try and follow along, we have covered this several times now), I asked a specific question of a different poster. My question was asking "what material is missing from the PADI manual that is included in the NAUI manual." (keeping it straight so far?)

You cut the end off my question and quoted me as asking "what is missing from the PADI manual......" Then you went on to mention the panic cycle flow chart. I responded by saying "no, it's not in the PADI manual, good example. So it's in the NAUI book?" (at that time I was still under the impression you had only quoted half my question out of laziness, not underhandedness)

Then you made the point that you have no idea what's in the NAUI book having never read it, but the flowchart is in the YMCA manual. (stay with me here, I fear this is where you keep getting lost) I replied that I did think that was interesting, however was outside the scope of my question, and I didn’t appreciate you changing my question to suit your answer. It is interesting, and therefore I am not uninterested in hearing about it. I take exception to you miss quoting me for the purpose of forwarding your own agenda. That was and still is the crux of my complaint. As I said previously, if your post had been relevant to the question asked, there would have been no reason to alter the question.


Thanks

 

[Walter]

I've understood you from the begining. I have no difficulty following, but that doesn't mean I'm going to swallow the load of crap you're trying to feed me.

First, Catherine said:

I can say anything I like about PADI. I have nothing against PADI, I have taken many of their courses. The coursework is not rigorous, the books have very little substantive material, I believe.

Your response was:

Again, I invite the debate. What is missing from the PADI OW manual, that I will find in the NAUI text? I do not have the NAUI book, or their standards, and would like to know.

Why did you bring NAUI into the discussion? She never mentioned NAUI. Your question was outside the scope of her statement. Were you being underhanded? What makes you think she's an expert on what is contained in NAUI texts? She's clearly stated she's a PADI DM.

Either get off your high horse and discuss the points or go off and pout.

Now, see if you can follow this - I did not attempt to answer your question nor did I pretend to do so. All I did is ask you a question about what is contained in the PADI text. This is at least the third time I've explained I was merely asking a question. Is it starting to sink in? You are under no obligation to answer my questions, but complaining about legitimate questions is a tad silly.

 

[mjatkins]

I've understood you from the begining. I have no difficulty following, but that doesn't mean I'm going to swallow the load of crap you're trying to feed me.

First, Catherine said:



Your response was:



Why did you bring NAUI into the discussion? She never mentioned NAUI. Your question was outside the scope of her statement. Were you being underhanded? What makes you think she's an expert on what is contained in NAUI texts? She's clearly stated she's a PADI DM.

Either get off your high horse and discuss the points or go off and pout.

Now, see if you can follow this - I did not attempt to answer your question nor did I pretend to do so. All I did is ask you a question about what is contained in the PADI text. This is at least the third time I've explained I was merely asking a question. Is it starting to sink in? You are under no obligation to answer my questions, but complaining about legitimate questions is a tad silly.

Walter Walter Walter, stop typing and do some reading. Once again you are either mistaken or intentionally miss quoting.

The question I aked was to AMAScuba in responce to his statement "You're kidding right? The proof is in the pudding. Compare the PADI OW standards to the GUE or even NAUI OW standards and you will see that there is a huge difference." And you know this to be true, as you just went and found it and fished it out of my post to quote in this last post!

If what you say is true, that you were simply asking a question that had nothing to do with my question, why quote it in whole or in part? And why go to the trouble of editing it if it was not related to your post?

Admit it Walter, you tried to manipulate a post in order to open an oppertunity to bring up your point. You got caught. Move on!

:no

Thanks

 

[Walter]

I've read it and I understand what I've read. I wish you would do the same. I have quoted you both exactly, no misquotes, go back and read the posts before going off half cocked.

I quoted you because my question was related to yours. What editing?

There's nothing to admit, I asked a question, I did not make a point. You're trying to invent things, but you're not very good at it.

 

[mjatkins]

I've read it and I understand what I've read. I wish you would do the same. I have quoted you both exactly, no misquotes, go back and read the posts before going off half cocked.

I quoted you because my question was related to yours. What editing?

There's nothing to admit, I asked a question, I did not make a point. You're trying to invent things, but you're not very good at it.

In your last post you mention a statement that Catherine made, then you quote a question that I asked someone else and ask me to defend my reasons for asking Catherine this question. As I have pointed out, I never asked her that question and you know this to be true since you got it out of a post directed at a different person. (ps. thanks for quoting it in it's entirety that time)

From the Oxford Dictionary of Current English;
Edit-arrange or modify (anothers work), reword for a purpose.

If you take someone's sentance and "edit" out half of it as you did to said question durring your first post, that's editing! No mystery.

It's all right there in this thread for anyone to go back and see. As I keep saying, if your post was not out of context to mine, why feel the need to edit my question.

I think I may be done with this now, as your playing dumb routine will only serve to take us back over the same points again and again. My point has been made, it is underhanded to miss quote someone in order to open an oppertunity for you to change the subject. If you want to change it, just do it. No need to be a sneaky about it.

Thanks

 

[serambin]

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



I completely agree.



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



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.



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.



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.



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



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.

Please look at the following link.
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/diving/ndc90/ndc90n.htm
I will post additional links when I have time. California also kept records from the 1970s and the results are similar.

Stan

Edit Please look at this from DAN.
http://www.diversalertnetwork.org/medical/report/index.asp

See the chart on page 18 of the 2001 report. (Fig 5
Annual record
of dive fatalities)

Thanks,

Stan

 

[mjatkins]

Please look at the following link.
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/diving/ndc90/ndc90n.htm
I will post additional links when I have time. California also kept records from the 1970s and the results are similar.

Stan

Thanks for posting this. Very interesting. I would like to see some more recsent stats if you have access.

Thanks

 

[J.R.]

From the Oxford Dictionary of Current English;
Edit-arrange or modify (anothers work), reword for a purpose.

If you take someone's sentance and "edit" out half of it as you did to said question durring your first post, that's editing! No mystery.

I tried to refrain... I really, really tried...

Ahem... Walter did NOT "edit"... he may have quoted incompletely, out of context or partially... heck in the worst of all possible cases it might be claimed to have misrepresented... (Note: I'm making no assertion to whether Walter did or did not misrepresent, accidentally or intentionally anything said by mjatkins... I simply state that these are possible conditions that may exist, subject to proof, regarding the use of the cliped and cited/referenced portion of mjatkins original post. The validity of any future assertions is to be determined in the 14th round of this championship brawl...) but, MJATKINS' post was and is as the post originally went up and available for reference by any who might find this tread interesting enough to pursue that course of action.

I would point out that while mjatkins knows how to look up words in a dictionary and the citation is accurate for the word 'edit'... the context of his use of the word is not.

Sorry... there's enough silly stuff out here with out abusing the language any more than necessary...

... actually, I would think the next move would be for somebody to assert that it is illegal for us to use the 'respond with quote' thing because it violatest the original poster's copyright rights in that they haven't given explicit permission to have others use their works... Now, this would be counterd by a claim that using SB with the 'respond with quote' thing is tacit agreement... and further the fact that both sides use the 'respond with quote' further agreement exists.

... I'm figuring this will end up in the world court somewhere around 3:17 GMT tomorrow...