There are agencies with objective standards (RAID, GUE, UTD, ISE and a few others). But market percentage wise, the sum of certifications by such agencies is small (but growing).
That's the hope. I don't put much stock into that though.
PADI Divemaster without Advanced?
- Thread starter chrisp10000
- Start date
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
Leatherboot69
Contributor
I think I take a bit of a different perspective being a relatively recent beginner who has pumped through the courses and first 50 dives or so quickly, so not embedded in a diving ‘mindset’ or part of a community just yet, and not experienced in the sense of having ‘000s of dives but experienced enough to make my own judgements. I also have some training design experience through which I am looking at this. The system seems to me to be based on a reasonably robust Training Needs Analysis. So I’m going to go out on a limb - I think the PADI system is quite good. I’d also go so far to say that many divers on SB aren’t it’s target market-it’s aimed primarily at a mass casual market and yet highly experienced divers on SB complain that it doesn’t meet their relatively niche, specialised expectations.
The OW course is what it is, it teaches safety skills to get a basic qualification (and just watched my GF get her OW, accompanying her on Dive 4 yesterday). It’s explicit about this and doesn’t claim to be anything more. There is no need for much more training at this level, just experience building, and certainly not for the comprehensive programmes some suggest, with Navy Seal style training, underwater stress testing, etc. The terms of the qualification allow the bearer to dive in situations similar to what they trained in-this often gets forgotten. They also have to meet set standards or do more dives. If it was much longer fewer people would do it and the industry would suffer, because the vast majority of new divers just want to be able to dive on holiday somewhere warm, and OW is a means to that end, not to do tec or become an experienced and committed diver.
The AOW delivers what it says, which is extra training and exposure to different environments, again, nothing more, nothing less. So this gives a new diver some more experience building accompanied by an instructor. It also gives a diver controlled and graduated exposure to a greater depth - so 18m for OW, 30m for AOW and 40m for Deep.
MSD has also been mentioned. I started another thread about this so won’t go into detail here, but PADI MSD (for me) was 21 training dives. NAUI MSD is 19 training dives (with no Rescue Diver course). Both systems have a theory course, placed at different parts of the system. PADI it’s optional for amateur, compulsory for pro; NAUI it’s compulsory for (amateur) MSD. Having now read the Encyclopedia of Recreational Diving I don’t think all of this theory is necessary for most recreational diving, certainly not what I’ve experienced over my first fifty dives. I will literally never use most of this information unless I do DM, so why would I need it for (amateur) MSD? It won’t make me a better (amateur) diver. The PADI and NAUI systems are fundamentally different views of the same thing, just reshuffling modules around. I like the PADI modularisation because it allows flexibility and tailoring to personal and local needs. And all MSD means is that a diver has completed a minimum of AOW, Rescue Diver, a bunch of other training and fifty dives, again, nothing more and nothing less. But it’s a useful benchmark of training achievement. Whilst I acknowledge that PADI don’t market it as such and that irritates some people, I see it as ‘the end of the beginning’, an intermediate level qualification.
Both systems are based on sound training theory. Both are based on sound research from literally millions of divers on what is needed at any given level. Both have high and improving safety statistics despite unfounded criticism that safety is low and declining.
Another of the common conversations on SB is what puts people off taking up Scuba. There’s lots of reasons but personally I’ve found the dogma around it to be a bit off putting, particuarly given that some of it seems to be anecdotal or received wisdom rather than evidence based (including ‘you’re not experienced until you have ‘000s of dives’; ‘don’t do DM unless you want to be a pro even if you just want it for personal accomplishment’; ‘you must do fundies’; ‘take your time building experience slowly regardless of how quickly you pick things up’). I haven’t really encountered it in other hobbies of mine including other watersports such as kayaking, and hiking, where there is much more emphasis on having fun and being carefree safely, and less on being a sort of underwater Freemason gaining access to a body of sacred knowledge in a hierarchical system.
The OW course is what it is, it teaches safety skills to get a basic qualification (and just watched my GF get her OW, accompanying her on Dive 4 yesterday). It’s explicit about this and doesn’t claim to be anything more. There is no need for much more training at this level, just experience building, and certainly not for the comprehensive programmes some suggest, with Navy Seal style training, underwater stress testing, etc. The terms of the qualification allow the bearer to dive in situations similar to what they trained in-this often gets forgotten. They also have to meet set standards or do more dives. If it was much longer fewer people would do it and the industry would suffer, because the vast majority of new divers just want to be able to dive on holiday somewhere warm, and OW is a means to that end, not to do tec or become an experienced and committed diver.
The AOW delivers what it says, which is extra training and exposure to different environments, again, nothing more, nothing less. So this gives a new diver some more experience building accompanied by an instructor. It also gives a diver controlled and graduated exposure to a greater depth - so 18m for OW, 30m for AOW and 40m for Deep.
MSD has also been mentioned. I started another thread about this so won’t go into detail here, but PADI MSD (for me) was 21 training dives. NAUI MSD is 19 training dives (with no Rescue Diver course). Both systems have a theory course, placed at different parts of the system. PADI it’s optional for amateur, compulsory for pro; NAUI it’s compulsory for (amateur) MSD. Having now read the Encyclopedia of Recreational Diving I don’t think all of this theory is necessary for most recreational diving, certainly not what I’ve experienced over my first fifty dives. I will literally never use most of this information unless I do DM, so why would I need it for (amateur) MSD? It won’t make me a better (amateur) diver. The PADI and NAUI systems are fundamentally different views of the same thing, just reshuffling modules around. I like the PADI modularisation because it allows flexibility and tailoring to personal and local needs. And all MSD means is that a diver has completed a minimum of AOW, Rescue Diver, a bunch of other training and fifty dives, again, nothing more and nothing less. But it’s a useful benchmark of training achievement. Whilst I acknowledge that PADI don’t market it as such and that irritates some people, I see it as ‘the end of the beginning’, an intermediate level qualification.
Both systems are based on sound training theory. Both are based on sound research from literally millions of divers on what is needed at any given level. Both have high and improving safety statistics despite unfounded criticism that safety is low and declining.
Another of the common conversations on SB is what puts people off taking up Scuba. There’s lots of reasons but personally I’ve found the dogma around it to be a bit off putting, particuarly given that some of it seems to be anecdotal or received wisdom rather than evidence based (including ‘you’re not experienced until you have ‘000s of dives’; ‘don’t do DM unless you want to be a pro even if you just want it for personal accomplishment’; ‘you must do fundies’; ‘take your time building experience slowly regardless of how quickly you pick things up’). I haven’t really encountered it in other hobbies of mine including other watersports such as kayaking, and hiking, where there is much more emphasis on having fun and being carefree safely, and less on being a sort of underwater Freemason gaining access to a body of sacred knowledge in a hierarchical system.
Blackcrusader
Contributor
I specifically went diving in Lombok for fast current low visibility dives. 2m vis in some cases. Stay with your dive guide and when you can't see him use your torch to signal cause cannot see their black wetsuits. a DM in training as the chap called himself panicked on the first negative entry into a fast current and that was the end of his fast current diving career. He was ok in Scotland in low vis with no current though. Just glad that diving with the dive op owner and his partner was fantastic. Already planning another dive trip there but instead of 4 days diving probably 7 - 10. I've never cancelled a dive on low visibility alone.
- Messages
- 16,428
- Reaction score
- 5,230
- # of dives
- 1000 - 2499
I agree with some of what you say. But I believe you have some misconceptions about PADI & NAUI MSD. There is no "theory" course for PADI MSD (unless you are referring to some specialty course bookwork somewhere). I know, I did PADI MSD. There is a ton of theory for PADI Divemaster course for pros-- this has nothing do do at all with the PADI MSD cert. By the way, there is apparently a fair bit less theory for PADI DM since they revamped the DM course in about 2010.
NAUI MSD apparently includes all the dive theory the (old?) PADI DM had, so they like to tout that. NAUI folks also point out that you can do some of the 5 required specialty certs. for PADI MSD that don't include actual diving. Yet as you point out, you can wind up with more dives with PADI MSD than with NAUI MSD, though I would imagine it's not that much of a difference in most cases.
Finally, I do agree with you in that a big % of the dive theory you'll learn with either MAUI MSD or PADI DM is pretty useless for a recreational diver. I'll also say I used a very small % of that knowledge when I assisted with OW courses as a PADI DM. Then again, how much of the info. one gets with a college degree is used during one's career?
Leatherboot69
Contributor
Hi, I was referring to the PADI Dive Theory online course, which can be taken as an optional standalone course by any diver for personal education but is compulsory for professional courses, here: Dive Theory | PADI
What I meant by saying Dive Theory is at different points in the PADI and NAUI systems is that for NAUI it’s placed at MSD and DM, whereas for PADI it’s placed at DM only and is also available as the optional course above for any amateur divers including MSD.
The difference with a college degree is that diving is my hobby, which I do for leisure, and my degree isn’t!
Blackcrusader
Contributor
Even though I did Deco dive training with BSAC sports diving from 1986 - 1988 and will do the TDI ANDP Course soon, even with those certificates I will still consider myself an amateur vacation diver.
scubaozy
Contributor
When I saw the title of the post, first thing came to my mind was those adds like "do an MBA without a Bachelors degree.
As ever, PADI's hoplessly useless marketing website gives you no clue as to the content of the that "course" for your £122/$140. One wonders if a book would be better?
Learning diving theory is part of the enjoyment of the hobby. Not all of us want to jump in and follow the DiveMaster with his rattle.
Dive theory becomes important when progressing beyond the OW limits as you need to know more about decompression (as in why the NDLs); why nitrox is a good thing; why diving beyond 30m/100ft becomes way more challenging; how to resolve problems. Theory and greater technology do go together, such as rebreathers.
Obviously there's plenty of people who've no clue about theory, just like there's plenty of people who drive cars and have never looked under the bonnet (hood) at that hot noisy thing.
Should you ever decide to go beyond recreational limits, i.e. beyond NDLs, then theory becomes more important.
Skills are the other thing. Being able to remain still in the water is an excellent skill that's incredibly useful in many very common situations. Not drifting down onto the bottom and kicking up silt/breaking coral/snagging yourself/annoying others is another great skill, as is decent finning techniques.
It's hard to compare scuba to other hobbies as there's so much to it. Kayaking is something you can do by buying one, using a little common sense, jumping in, and off you go. Sure, whitewater kayaking is a different thing, but most kayaking doesn't need a great deal of specialist skills to be performed precisely. Maybe rolling a kayak is a skill akin to some scuba skills.
Leatherboot69
Contributor
That was just the initial landing page for the course but as stated it covers the full DM theory syllabus, and indeed is credited against the DM Dive Theory exam.
I don’t myself think learning dive theory beyond OW is an important part of the hobby for the vast majority of divers, who never intend to progress beyond NDL rec diving - I include myself in this category and I expect numerically this is most divers. Millions of dives are made each year by rec divers with the barest understanding of dive theory, and yet they don’t drown. I personally don’t find dive theory a particularly enjoyable part of the hobby although I might do the online course in the off season.
Like scuba or any activity, there’s degrees of complexity. Yes, you could just buy a kayak and jump in and paddle around a lake in good weather, just as you can go snorkelling with no training or just do Discover Scuba Dives (which a guy I met diving today had started off doing, and also which my girlfriend originally asked me why she couldn’t just do that). Or you can get into eg sea kayaking, and start having to understand tides, weather, navigation, rescue, safety, different techniques etc, just as you might get into OW and then different and more complex types of scuba.
I also think you’re kind of supporting my point - most kayaking doesn’t need many specialist skills, but equally most scuba doesn’t need many specialist skills either.
The only info is this vapid guff:
If this were the only info about a book on Amazon/whatever, you'd never bother buying it.Useless PADI website says::
We can agree on that. If you're happy doing classic, shallow, good visibility warm water diving, with a DiveMaster telling you what to do, then you need little more than Open Water. As you say, most people are happy with that.
If you progress into other types of recreational diving then theory becomes more important. For example Nitrox, deep specialities, even throwing up a DSMB.
Should you venture beyond NDLs the theory is important to understand what's going on around you and why things are as they are.
Similar threads
