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

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

This is going to be my last post on this thread ever... I'm going to unsubscribe to it.

To the Instructors in the group that wish to carry this one... Take it to the I2I forum. The original poster wanted to know wbout the oversight by various dive agencies... IMHO, the answers were several posts back... Now it has turned into a "he said, she said" argument.

Goodbye dear thread.
 
:blahblah: :blahblah: :furious: :mad: :krach: :boxing_sm :smash: :angrymob: :chair: :letsparty: :catfight: :catfight:
 
mojokelt:
At the risk of extending this contentious issue I would just like to add that my experiences of PADI's QA process here in the UK/Ireland is that it is a joke.

Not saying that your experience with the QA process isn't poor... but just for clarification, you are never intended to know what PADI has actually done to remediate that instructor. It *feels* like we should be able to hear all the conversations, and to really make sure that that BAD instructor is slapped down, but we don't get to. All of our righteous indignation has no outlet.

BTW, it doesn't improve. When PADI does finish their QA investigation, and do send you the email that says "Thank you. We now consider this matter closed." it will be about as satisfying as kissing your sister. The fact that we don't know what was done in no way means that *nothing* was done, though, and we need to remember that making the report was the right thing, and for the "reporter" that's where it ends.

kari
 
Walter:
7. Swim underwater with scuba equipment while maintaining control of both direction and depth......

11. Adjust for proper weighting..........

1. Independently establish neutral buoyancy under water........

Look at your standards with an open, questioning mind.

Okay, I see your point. (and I do try to keep an open mind - but not so open that thoughts just run through it!)

I see this as a "fine-tuning progression" where in the first session we do some swimming UW to get a sense of what we're dealing with - to enjoy the feeling of being UW with scuba. In the second session when we adjust for proper weighting, we have had the discussion about HOW to do that, WHY we're going to want to, and WHEN it will be important, and now it's time to practice getting it right. At this point, we have enough knowledge to understand that buoyancy has a couple of different factors (like weights vs. air in BC) and learn how to affect one of those factors. In the third session we practice manipulating the second of those factors - the air in the BC. From that point on, we have the principles of neutral buoyancy and can adjust one or both as required to ensure we are where we want to be in the water column.

To me, it seems like a natural progression. The "swim UW in scuba" is part of each pool session, and students tend to improve at each opportunity.

What other examples do you have? :blinking:

kari
 
sytech:
how the heck do you even know that the course is being taught according to the agency's already very "flexible" criteria? The fact is that you don't.

In the classes I teach, we give the students the toll-free number for PADI, and tell them to call if they have any questions about the standards under which this, or any other course, is to be conducted.

It's not that hard to get information; the hard part is deciding that you actually want to do it.

kari
 
Walter, I happen to agree with you on this one.

In the old days, when PADI split, it was over the issue of over teaching and NAUI's insistence on all classes being taught with the same material and the same subjects.

Today, PADI has a fixed agenda and NAUI is flexable...How very, very odd. The original issue, and the issue of oversight today seems to still remain unresolved.

If you are teaching new divers, in an area where there is strong current, should you do more detailed teaching on this issue? Should you have a specific dive where they get to practice current skills? If you don't, are you certifying unsafe divers? If you decide to replace some other part of the course with that work, are you also certifying unsafe divers?

If you should, then you are now teaching something different, to different standards. How should the agencies address this?

If you don't, then where will they magically get this necessary skill?

Walter:
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.
 
Puffer Fish:
In the old days, when PADI split, it was over the issue of over teaching and NAUI's insistence on all classes being taught with the same material and the same subjects.
NAUI NEVER, NEVER, NEVER required the use of a specified text or set or materials.
 
Thalassamania:
NAUI NEVER, NEVER, NEVER required the use of a specified text or set or materials.
My choice of words may not have been correct, as I have a bit of trouble exactly remembering the specific wording. The point I was making was that they required specific skills and information to be taught. I believe you missed the giant conflict over this, as it was old history by 1975. I knew of no one, in 73 using anything other than NAUI materials, but did not know anyone from the Midwest at the time. But given the PADI issues from the midwest, it would not surprize me. Sorry for my poor choice of wording NAUI#4186
 
Puffer Fish:
My choice of words may not have been correct, as I have a bit of trouble exactly remembering the specific wording. The point I was making was that they required specific skills and information to be taught. I believe you missed the giant conflict over this, as it was old history by 1975. I knew of no one, in 73 using anything other than NAUI materials, but did not know anyone from the Midwest at the time. But given the PADI issues from the midwest, it would not surprize me. Sorry for my poor choice of wording NAUI#4186
With all due respect (and that's a lot since you beat me by about 300 NAUI #s), I stand by my statement. NAUI has never required the use of specific texts or materials. In point of fact, in 1973, NAUI did not have any materials but suggested the use of "the New Science of Skin and Scuba." NAUI's first official materials did not come out until the mid 1980s (the NAUI Textbook I).
 
Thalassamania:
With all due respect (and that's a lot since you beat me by about 300 NAUI #s), I stand by my statement. NAUI has never required the use of specific texts or materials. In point of fact, in 1973, NAUI did not have any materials but suggested the use of "the New Science of Skin and Scuba." NAUI's first official materials did not come out until the mid 1980s (the NAUI Textbook I).


Correct. I know NAUI Inst's that even used SCIP manuals into the early 80's.

NAUI 5709L C.D.
 

Back
Top Bottom