Erich S
Contributor
Isn’t Tech considered Rec?
PADI Beyond Master Scuba Diver
- Thread starter Efka76
- Start date
-
- Tags
- master scuba diver padi
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
Isn’t Tech considered Rec?
I see what you did there. Nevertheless, why create the rigorous training and different terms—if they are not different types of diving? Moreover, I would add Tech leads into Science and Exploration, thus a working diver ethos, e.g., Cave Surveys, Wreck Archeology Expeditions, Dive Medicine, Support Diver Roles, Field Studies, etc.
IMHO, they are different.
STIDVC
Contributor
wait what... noooooooooo!!!!!
Bob DBF
Contributor
It’s still recreational diving, and didn’t have a special name until recently. The dives and training have been evolving since the beginning of recreational diving.
Bob DBF
Contributor
Whether the dives are recreational is dependant on why you do the dive, not the equipment you use. Now if you are talking about Scientific diving, it is another type of diving, regardless of profile. Tech diving is just another facet of recreational diving.
Try 1999. “In his 1989 book, Advanced Wreck Diving, author and leading technical diver, Gary Gentile, commented that there was no accepted term for divers who dived beyond agency-specified recreational limits for non-professional purposes. Revised editions use the term technical diving, and Gary Gentile published a further book in 1999 entitled The Technical Diving Handbook.”
I’ve been diving since’62, and deco since ‘64. At the time there were no agency specified limits, other than the training was for NDL diving which can be done to 190’.
Bob
I am clearly late to this thread for a number of reasons and I am only 1/2 way through reading it currently. I would normally wait to read everything before responding, but this post by @Colliam7 stopped me in my tracks. Wow! Just so well stated and salient! Holy Crap-- you are hired! So on point and self-aware. I am going to bed and not coming back to this thread until tomorrow. You nailed it. I will sleep peacefully.This is the first I have heard of it. I suspect it will catch on.
Programs like Master Scuba Diver, and presumably now the 'MSD with stars', are recognition programs, intended to provide positive feedback and reinforcement, which encourages individuals to continue an endeavor. Whether we agree with it or not here in our heady SB discussions, it is a reflection of fundamental human nature. From my perspective, it is good for the industry as a whole, if it keeps people diving.
Why do people continue to dive? Some want to see new places. Yes, they have a (numerical) bucket list of sites they want to visit. Some want to 'see' something - a particular wreck, a whale shark, whatever. Some want to continue to develop as a diver. (I have said before in posts on SB - for me EVERY dive is a training dive, whether I am diving recreationally, whether I am teaching, whether I am working to clean up a site.) But, whatever our reasons, we all like a little 'recognition' now and then, even if it is something that only we know about. (I achieved a milestone in scuba teaching this year. I am proud of it. It meant something to me. And, I am not saying what it was - that is my business.)
Unfortunately, the label 'Master' Scuba Diver routinely elicits a certain degree of hostility, even negativity. If PADI had used a term other than 'Master', the reaction would probably have been somewhat less animated.
But, the idea of the MSD program, now the potential 'stars' addition, raises a question. How do you 'recognize' someone for achievement? There may be quality measures based on defined competencies - I think Fundies is one example of that. Of course, quality is often difficult to measure objectively. (Like the comments I often hear about the 'quality' of art, or of music, 'Well, uh, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.' What the @#$% does that mean?) There are also quantity indicators of achievement, based on some parameter that is objectively measureable. And, those measures - not surprisingly - often become the default, because they are, quite simply, easier to apply. The MSD certification is an example. Now, the 'stars' evolution is another. Number of dives. Numbers of certifications. Number of years diving. Are these surprising? How many companies give service awards based on . . . years of service. Why do businesses tout how long they have been around, if not for the implied statement that 'they must be good if they have stayed in business so long'?
I 'grew up' in a dive shop where the owner would put every customer's MSD certificate in a frame and hang it on the wall (if the customer allowed, which almost all did). The many frames provided a border around the walls of the shop. Divers would come in to visit, and it would be unusual if they did not glance up to make sure their certificate was still there.The practice contributed to a sense of community, it built loyalty, it promoted business. It encouraged others to take courses. Those Master Scuba Diver certificate holders were some of the shop's best ambassadors - they would talk about diving, they would bring friends in to sign up to learn to dive, they would afford those friends a 'target' for a little friendly competition. And, the shop would prosper. Like it or not, that's what the shop was there for - to do business, to make money. Those of us who teach scuba as an avocation - we have a day job, or another source of income to sustain us - can afford the luxury of looking askance at dive shops, and training agencies, and equipment manufacturers who engage in crass commercialism. (Sniff, sniff) But, guess what? The shop brings me business. It promotes diving, it sells customers on the idea of continued training, and I have more classes to teach, and students to mentor. I do not criticize (and am not envious of) PADI or any other agency for being successful. In a time when the industry is struggling, when dive shop closures outstrip dive shop openings, it is nice to see an organization succeed.
As a diver, I need for those entities to be successful. I need the scuba industry to be sustainable. I can't manufacture my own equipment as well as Apeks, or Halcyon, or Scubapro can. I don't want to have to maintain my own compressor. I don't want to have to buy my own dive boat, or my own airplane to fly me to the coast to use that boat. If not enough people dive, and keep diving, I lose. So, if providing some form of positive feedback, some form of recognition, that makes divers feel that they have achieved something, that is meaningful to them, I am all for it.
Looks like we both might be wrong on this one Bob
“The term technical diving can be traced back to the cover story of the first issue of "AquaCorps" magazine, in early 1990, titled call it "High-Tech" Diving by Bill Hamilton, describing the current state of recreational diving beyond the generally accepted limits, such as, deep, decompression and mixed gas diving. By mid 1991, the magazine was using the term technical diving, as an analogy with the established term technical (rock) climbing.”
Telvar
Registered
Frankly, I'm surprised that PADI didn't come up with this earlier, but I think it won't be terribly successful, because what sounds better that Master Scuba diver? Expert diver? Dive guru? God diver? Certainly not 5 star diver afaic.
First of all, getting more PADI specialties does not necessarily make you a better diver, diving more does. As far as I'm concerned, there are specialties with specific use (nitrox, drysuit, sidemount, deep, cave, those kinds) that teach you specific stuff you will want or need in certain situations (I want to go diving in Silfra, Iceland next October so I got my drysuit certification last year and booked some additional drysuit training dives. Without previous drysuit dives or a certification, I cannot dive there).
Most other specialty courses are not required for anything and don't really even require a training program. Stuff like PPB, underwater photography, fish recognition, boat diving can be learned mostly by yourself with a little help from someone else. Those courses itself do not really make you a better diver. Also, as far as I have been able to tell, you're not learning that much in these courses. That doesn't mean they're worthless, but they're not really making you a better diver. Example: After my OW I did my PPB specialty because my buoyancy still needed work . As far as I'm concerned, you really do't need a PPB specialty to become better at buoyancy. Doing a couple of pool dives with someone with a lot more experience on this would probably achieve the same or even more. And yes I know that writing the above will probably elicit a lot of comments here, but that's how I feel about it.
There are a lot of people that are collecting certifications and there's nothing wrong with that, but that's not about being a better diver. Being a better diver is about diving, diving and diving and being open to learn every time while doing it.
And I get the achievement-thing like Colliam said. I think I'll do my Rescue course next year and then I'll be eligible for 'Master Scuba Diver' status. Will I feel like I achieved something? Definitely and I'll feel good about myself. Will I BE a master scuba diver? No way. If I add 1000 more dives, maybe. Maybe "Somewhat Competent Scuba diver" would be a better qualification, but that doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
First of all, getting more PADI specialties does not necessarily make you a better diver, diving more does. As far as I'm concerned, there are specialties with specific use (nitrox, drysuit, sidemount, deep, cave, those kinds) that teach you specific stuff you will want or need in certain situations (I want to go diving in Silfra, Iceland next October so I got my drysuit certification last year and booked some additional drysuit training dives. Without previous drysuit dives or a certification, I cannot dive there).
Most other specialty courses are not required for anything and don't really even require a training program. Stuff like PPB, underwater photography, fish recognition, boat diving can be learned mostly by yourself with a little help from someone else. Those courses itself do not really make you a better diver. Also, as far as I have been able to tell, you're not learning that much in these courses. That doesn't mean they're worthless, but they're not really making you a better diver. Example: After my OW I did my PPB specialty because my buoyancy still needed work . As far as I'm concerned, you really do't need a PPB specialty to become better at buoyancy. Doing a couple of pool dives with someone with a lot more experience on this would probably achieve the same or even more. And yes I know that writing the above will probably elicit a lot of comments here, but that's how I feel about it.
There are a lot of people that are collecting certifications and there's nothing wrong with that, but that's not about being a better diver. Being a better diver is about diving, diving and diving and being open to learn every time while doing it.
And I get the achievement-thing like Colliam said. I think I'll do my Rescue course next year and then I'll be eligible for 'Master Scuba Diver' status. Will I feel like I achieved something? Definitely and I'll feel good about myself. Will I BE a master scuba diver? No way. If I add 1000 more dives, maybe. Maybe "Somewhat Competent Scuba diver" would be a better qualification, but that doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
Similar threads
