PADI Nitrox Course Review

[Quero]

Does anyone gets their tanks filled at 'welding fill suppliers'?

Not people who have gone through a course, but you'd be surprised at what some people will do to save money on fills--they'll go to places that fill paint-ball tanks, welding tanks, tires, etc. Generally speaking, the course will allow for opportunities to mention this so that anybody that might have this idea is quickly disabused of it.

I think one objective of the course is to '..find gaps in understanding and discuss topics further'. I think the objective of tests is to see if the information stuck and was comprehended.

Well, that's two ways of saying the same thing. The tests are part of the course, not a separate thing. The gaps exposed by the test are where information didn't stick and was not comprehended, thus indicating that further discussion (i.e., 'teaching') is in order. It seems, for example, that you haven't yet understood the difference between the risks of filling a tank improperly and the risks of using a tank improperly or you wouldn't still be debating the answers to that particular question.

I'm not proposing taking something simple and making it difficult. But courses where no one fails (at first attempt) can't be a good thing

Why not? If the subject matter is not difficult, why should a course that presents this simple subject matter be made hard to pass on the first try? What would be the good of failing people? Just to say that not everybody passes? What would be the good in making a course more difficult to pass? Simply in order to create a failure statistic that you find acceptable?

 

[Scott]

i have to take exception to your 30 second course. I feel confident you do not actually do it in 30 seconds however, you general attitude appears to be that the stupid students cant handle such comples concepts so i will give them a hand full of rules and call it a day. I dont know how much teaching you have done but each course is a steppping stone to the nest level. of your pints "a" is a good, it is safety and just common sence, besides only you are responsible for your ultimate safety. "b" is a bad one. what about 27% 36% 40%. or does that require some math and knowing about ead and and the like. when moving on to trimix those concepts of ead and end need to be socond nature. "c" why there are deep diving and then tech stuff that will break that rule. not to mention 100 ft is not the right depth for other mixes, which they will never know because they dont know. "d" i wont go there. only teach computer....... this is a pass the buck of responsibility to the computer... If you die dont feel bad it was the computers fault not yours......because you did not know any different.

I truly hope i have missunderstood you position.

Me thinks you do not know Peter very well.

 

[TMHeimer]

You might think that it's splitting hairs in terms of word usage, but since you are advocating precision in wording things, let's be clear: predisposing factors and causes are not the same. All of the factors you name may predispose a diver towards being more susceptible to getting a DCS hit, but none of them will actually cause the hit. A diver will never take a hit simply by taking a hot shower or drinking alcohol or exercising, but a diver may take a hit without any of these factors coming into play if s/he dives too deep for too long. When you look at it from a cause and effect perspective, it's clear what causes DCS and what doesn't.

I can't disagree with you nor with others who point out that these questions are probably technically correct. I guess all I'm saying is they are "tricky". The nitrox question confused the OP, and he has considerable more experience than me. Apologize for beating a dead horse.

 

[Quero]

I can't disagree with you nor with others who point out that these questions are probably technically correct. I guess all I'm saying is they are "tricky". The nitrox question confused the OP, and he has considerable more experience than me. Apologize for beating a dead horse.

No, no. Please don't apologize... you've made my point rather nicely! It's all a question of perspective and attitude. The only reason to think that these test items are "tricky" is if you get the idea that having an incorrect answer is a black mark against your character and intelligence. In reality, these assessments are not meant to be high-stakes weed-em-out examinations but rather evaluations of progress that allow both the instructor and the student to revisit particular topics. It's a mistake to confuse this type of assessment with rigid, high-stakes tests (if you don't pass you don't get your credentials sort of thing). If a student finds a test question or answer choice confusing, it simply means that we have another opportunity to teach the concepts. In the end the only thing that's important is whether the student has a clear understanding of the subject matter. Nobody is going to ask how you scored on any tests when you gear up.

 

[TMHeimer]

Quero, Agree completely. The only important thing is that the student understands the material.

 

[TSandM]

That's a really lovely attitude to cultivate.

Some of us are overachievers, and hate to have anything marked "wrong". I always dispute at least one or two questions on any PADI exam. I think they are often ambiguous, although I don't think I would have misread the intent of this one. But I understand where the OP is coming from in having done so.

 

[NAM001]

i couldnt agree more

That's a good question...I think I was expecting, that by the end of the class, I would need to have demonstrated I could calculate MOD and no stop times for a given %age O2. If I were training, I would want to turn out people, who could at least mentally check their computer plan looked about right.

...

 

[NAM001]

scott

I do not know Peter at all,,, i do know the idea of reducing information , that has far reaching affects, to a hand full of rules is scarry. Based on his statement i would never take a course from him.

Me thinks you do not know Peter very well.

 

[TSandM]

KWS, you're reading Peter's post wrong. He may start out his class with a summary that's composed of what he wrote, but the class itself is far more extensive. Believe me, his students learn to calculate MOD; they also learn to do gas planning and talk about the implications of longer bottom times on required gas supply. I would guess he teaches one of the most comprehensive classroom Nitrox courses out there. It requires two sessions of about three hours each.

 

[RonFrank]

The OP complains about poorly worded questions, and then provides an example that is NOT poorly worded.

Q7. The potential hazards that can arise from filling an enriched air cylinder improperly include (check all that apply):
a. Fire
b. Explosion
c. Decompression illness
d. Oxygen toxicity
Actual correct reply is a, b, c, d.
Printed book reply: a, b.

UMM, the correct answer is A & B as PADI indicates.

So explain to me how one can get O2 tox OR DCS from improperly FILLING a tank?

I think PADI has dumbed their tests down to the extreme, and we still get folks complaining. So does the OP want to explain how this question is confusing? The only thing worst than missing that question is then going online and broadcasting this foolishness to the world.....

PADI is not the best organization on earth, but in this case I have to wonder what you were thinking?