PADI Tec 40 Instructor Course in Ohio?

[berndo]

Only if you have personally taken courses from "many" PADI or SSI tech instructors could you have a basis for asserting an opinion that "many" suck.

What a silly response.

I don't have to take a class with an instructor in oder to assess whether an instructor can or can't kick, trim out of dives with dangling gear. It's really not that hard.
Even you could figure it out, if you looked at some of the PADI/SSI and marketing footage posted on facebook and youtube, or the marketing footage posted by random instructors.

In addition to this, I've worked as an instructor and have travelled a lot. I've seen plenty of 'tec' instructors in the water and still see 'tec' instructors in person. I know ITs that were given 'tec' IT ratings when PADI and SSI started their tec programs without any or hardly any extra training or QA. That includes rebreather training for some units.

It's not a secret amonst people who worked in the industry that especially the 'tec instructor' segment of the business is an utter sh!t shown when it comes to QC. That's part of the reason your little group was started and had success in the first place... because the competition is so incredibly weak. It's kind of ironic that a gue fanboy of all people is doubting this. In the fundi book they literally point out that gue was started because most scuba training and instructors suck. It's literally the first part of their sales pitch.

 

[Lorenzoid]

I don't have to take a class with an instructor in oder to assess whether an instructor can or can't kick, trim out of dives with dangling gear. It's really not that hard.
Even you could figure it out, if you looked at some of the PADI/SSI and marketing footage posted on facebook and youtube, or the marketing footage posted by random instructors.

In addition to this, I've worked as an instructor and have travelled a lot. I've seen plenty of 'tec' instructors in the water and still see 'tec' instructors in person.

I don't know what conclusions might be reasonable to draw from marketing footage. I would not draw conclusions about some large percentage of an agency's instructor corps simply from having seen marketing footage in which things looked suspect.

@berndo, it's possible that you as a traveling instructor have observed "plenty" of tech intructors and are in a better position to give your opinion of those instructors than others who are not instructors or haven't observed as many tech instructors as you have. My point was only that we should all try to be careful with our words to avoid making broad generalizations about an entire agency's training program or instructor corps based on scant personal experience.

 

[berndo]

I don't know what conclusions might be reasonable to draw from marketing footage.

What? So, when somebody puts out a video that is supposed to be advertisement for their training were it's clear they themselves have poor basic skills... you can't draw a conclusion from that?

My point was only that we should all try to be careful with our words to avoid making broad generalizations about an entire agency's training program or instructor corps based on scant personal experience.

If they had a semi decent standard for their instructors when it comes to the basics, you wouldn't see so many instructors with poor skills. I don't have to see every single instructor to know that.
If I buy a product and 3 or 4 out of 6 are faulty, it's obvious that the manufacturers doesn't check for that fault. If I see a number of PADI/SSI instructors that have poor trim, poor kicking skills and dangling gear I know that they obviously don't QC for that stuff in instructor training.
What about this isn't obvious to you exactly?

What @Hppyfam said a couple of posts further up is exactly right. The ICD farms (great term), among others, produce many tec instructor and tec divers without even knowing how and why they suck. They also produce alot of the marketing material... and PADI either doesn't care or doesn't know.
The old PADI sidemount marketing materials are a perfect example.

BTW: Are you saying they are 'making broad generalizations about an entire agency's training program or instructor corps based on scant personal experience' in the GUE fundi book? Should they be careful with their words?

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I don't know what conclusions might be reasonable to draw from marketing footage. I would not draw conclusions about some large percentage of an agency's instructor corps simply from having seen marketing footage in which things looked suspect.

These materials are an indication of the standard. While people say that their agency encourages teaching neutrally buoyant and trimmed, do all their videos reflect this? Isn't it reasonable for instructors to make the assumption that the training videos they view are essentially the standard for training?

I won't get into the video from a dry suit class (not PADI) where a diver is in a twinset, long hose, and SNORKEL! Who approves these things?

My point was only that we should all try to be careful with our words to avoid making broad generalizations about an entire agency's training program or instructor corps based on scant personal experience.

I can't say I agree here. It isn't just our own statistically insignificant observations, but also collectively with others. Plus training materials/demonstration videos. There's a platinum course director that produces absolutely abysmal skills videos.

If training wasn't lacking, AG would never have created fundies.

It isn't rocket science, but appears to be beyond the grasp of many due to an unwillingness to grow.

Skilled divers/instructors are as rare as bicyclists obeying traffic laws.

 

[Lorenzoid]

What? So, when somebody puts out a video that is supposed to be advertisement for their training were it's clear they themselves have poor basic skills... you can't draw a conclusion from that?

I don't expect marketing videos to be as realistic as an actual course. I would guess the divers in the video are focusing on doing what they were told by the marketing department. If something looks bad, maybe they got complacent and sloppy in the name of getting through the shoot expediently or getting a good shot. Maybe the instructor in the video is indeed one of the poorer instructors. Who knows. We each can give a marketing video whatever weight we feel is appropriate in judging the agency. I wouldn't draw a conclusion about an agency solely from that.

If they had a semi decent standard for their instructors when it comes to the basics, you wouldn't see so many instructors with poor skills. I don't have to see every single instructor to know that.

Criticizing an agency's published standards wouldn't be agency bashing. If they don't publish standards, then sure, you'd have to base your opinions on something else. You may not need to see "every single instructor" to conclude an agency has loose standards, but how about a statistically significant number of them?

BTW: Are you saying they are 'making broad generalizations about an entire agency's training program or instructor corps based on scant personal experience' in the GUE fundi book? Should they be careful with their words?

If you're referring to the thinly veiled agency bashing in the Fundamentals of Better Diving, that is something that did not sit well with me. I don't know if that was retained in the newer edition of the book; I hope they had the sense to remove it.

 

[berndo]

I don't expect marketing videos to be as realistic as an actual course. I would guess the divers in the video are focusing on doing what they were told by the marketing department.

Not sure if you're trolling me or not. Marketing material is supposed to show what you're selling. It's to make a good impression and demo a level of skill and expertise.
Pictures and videos on an shop/instructor/ageny site are not picked at random. When PADI put out these awful sidemount add pictures they thought they were good... which is a sign of incompetence. Lucky for them, the average backpacker in Thailand doesn't know how bad it is... but those people are the target audience.

If something looks bad, maybe they got complacent and sloppy in the name of getting through the shoot expediently or getting a good shot.

If they are sloppy and complacent with the stuff they do publically, I don't wanna see what they do when there is no camera around.

If you're referring to the thinly veiled agency bashing in the Fundamentals of Better Diving, that is something that did not sit well with me. I don't know if that was retained in the newer edition of the book; I hope they had the sense to remove it.

So one of the things they are actually correct about, didn't sit well with you. Why would they remove it? Again, is basically part of the sales pitch. Why in the world would you or any other person pay 2x or 3x or whatever more if they didn't expect a better standard or something better in some way?

 

[Lorenzoid]

Marketing material is supposed to show what you're selling. It's to make a good impression and demo a level of skill and expertise.

Yes, marketing materials are supposed to accurately depict the product. Paradoxically, it seems to me, while slick advertisements for consumer products tend to make the product look better than it really is, those training agency videos make the product look bad to viewers like you who have the expertise to know.

Pictures and videos on an shop/instructor/ageny site are not picked at random. When PADI put out these awful sidemount add pictures they thought they were good... which is a sign of incompetence. Lucky for them, the average backpacker in Thailand doesn't know how bad it is... but those people are the target audience.

I'm sure they're not picked at random, but are they picked by really good instructors from out in the field, or are they picked by back-office people who might be more interested in whether it looks like the students are having fun than the technical details? I completely agree they could do better, but to reiterate my point, I would not put quite so much weight on the videos in judging the agency as a whole as you seem to. Giving one's opinion that Agency X sucks or most instructors from Agency X suck based on those marketing videos seems unfair to me. We disagree. Okay.

By the way, the "average backpacker in Thailand" probably isn't reading opinions of Agency X or their instructor corps on ScubaBoard, so why bother posting the opinion? It's not helping those people. Rather, the generalization is potentially irritating to instructors of Agency X who might actually be good instructors and doing the best they can to help steer the agency as a whole toward higher quality.

If they are sloppy and complacent with the stuff they do publically, I don't wanna see what they do when there is no camera around.

I agree. Still no need to post a sweeping generalization that Agency X or their instructors all suck based on those videos. Criticize the individual videos if you wish, and let that one backpacker in Thailand who somehow wanders from Instagram over to ScubaBoard draw their own broader conclusion if they wish.

So one of the things they are actually correct about, didn't sit well with you. Why would they remove it? Again, is basically part of the sales pitch. Why in the world would you or any other person pay 2x or 3x or whatever more if they didn't expect a better standard or something better in some way?

I don't particularly care for so-called comparative advertising in general. To make a sales pitch, there's no real need to denigrate your competitor's product. I guess it works, because it's done all the time, but it turns me off. GUE may offer superior training, but the tone of superiority turned me off when I read that bit in the Fundamentals of Better Diving book. Anyway, we're talking about agency bashing in a public forum, not in a book that's arguably "part of the sales pitch" for Fundamentals.

 

[berndo]

I'm not sure how you're using the word bashing. Pointing out something that sucks about whatever is not bashing unless it's made up or exaggerated.

Rather, the generalization is potentially irritating to instructors of Agency X who might actually be good instructors and doing the best they can to help steer the agency as a whole toward higher quality.

When I was a SSI instructor it didn't bother me one bit when people said SSI sucks. They do suck.
Doesn't mean that my OW classes sucked.
The issue is not the 3.5 days OW classes, poodle BCDs and people kneeling. The issue is that the agencies don't care about quality. Selling as many instructor tickets as they can is what they trying to do... as they are the real suckers in this game. They go out and sell AND pay membership.

 

[Lorenzoid]

I'm not sure how you're using the word bashing. Pointing out something that sucks about whatever is not bashing unless it's made up or exaggerated.

An example would be making a sweeping assertion that an entire agency is bad or the majority of its instructors are bad based on just a few experiences or observations. Maybe that's what you mean by "exaggerated." Mocking an agency may be bashing, as in repeating tired memes. Specific criticisms of what one has observed or experienced are not bashing.

 

[evandroairton]

Strongly suggest you choose an instructor first and worry about the agency and location later. You might need to travel to find a good one.

You can find 1000s threads on this topic here, all saying the same basic thing - there are good and bad instructors with any agency and picking courses based on agency is a big mistake.

Maybe it's time to go back to the initial posts