PADI Tec Sidemount Materials (oh no... not another 'bad pictures' issue!)

[Dive-aholic]

It just strikes me that the people in their 'media department' aren't really 'in tune' with the tech community ethos on the smaller points - which, as mentioned, does an injustice to those PADI instructors who do teach these courses 'properly'.

I'm surprised they don't subject the materials to an instructor panel review prior to publishing. Or..., if they do,... how these photos make it past the edit.

Those of us who teach technical courses quickly learn that posting promotional materials which illustrate 'sloppy diving' are always counter-productive.

Why would they when the guy in those pics is the one who started the PADI sidemount program??

 

[JamesK]

Why would they when the guy in those pics is the one who started the PADI sidemount program??

Who is it?

 

[DevonDiver]

There's far better pictures of Jeff... a glance at his facebook albums confirms that.

 

[Helipilot86]

Could it be this one -

Still laughing!!

 

[JamesK]

There's far better pictures of Jeff... a glance at his facebook albums confirms that.

So then he knows what right looks like. I would have insisted on different pictures.

 

[CamG]

Well it should be easier to convince freshly minted Padi SM divers to take a specialty coarse with trim like that.
Sorry just a but disappointed that Padi would use this image to promote good technique to the TECH realm.
Guess it is the knees on the bottom equivalent.

I guess the other Tech agencies were not doing a good enough job? Possibly to good? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!
That explains it!

CamG

 

[Pullmyfinger]

Ahhh yes. Front mount, so much more steamlined and clutter free then backmount or sidemount. LOL!!!!!!!!

---------- Post added ----------

Of course!

PADI and 'tech' seems to follow a similar path, every time a new training component is released... as with the initial core tech program, then sidemount, now CCR.... next cave (probably)... Here's how (with my limited perspective), I see PADI tech evolving....

1. There's always a 'first generation' of cadre instructors, who typically get the rating from PADI as an initial cross-over, having trained/taught/developed extensively via multiple other agencies. These guys (and girls) have typically been actively involved in the subject area long before getting a 'PADI rating' and may be considered 'subject matter experts' to a greater, or lesser, degree. They get the PADI rating on the basis of prior experience/qualification - not via a PADI training course. I saw this with the initial development of the 'Tec Deep' program - where the initial cadre of instructors/instructor trainers were all highly experienced technical educators who had previously taught tech diving for other agencies (TDI, IANTD etc). These are the guys who previously wrote 'distinctive specialties' and/or help develop the initial PADI course outlines...

For instance; with sidemount, I'd include guys like Jeff Loflin and Steve Martin in this category. To a lesser, and far more humble, degree myself - having never trained with a PADI 'sidemount instructor' prior to crossing over via direct experience.

2. Then there's a 'second generation' of instructors, who are the product of the first generation. They receive un-distilled skills and are typically 'fore-runners' and have a genuine passion for the subject. These are the PADI instructors who are already involved in the discipline and hold qualifications (at diver level) with other agencies already. They often have a pre-existing student-mentor relationship with the first generation instructors who have crossed-over and, consequently, get their initial instructor ratings with PADI, rather than an alternative agency.

This was me at the initial 'tech' level - having completed technical training, at diver level, under multiple instructors from varied agencies. My first intro to teaching the PADI system of tech was via my TecRec instructor course - run by a very experienced, multi-agency 'old school' tech instructor trainer..

3. Then a 'third generation' of instructors, who train under the first/second generation... often with a focus on becoming 'instructor trainers' in that subject - many are course directors etc. Their interest in the subject area may be more 'commercial' than 'participation based' and only a percentage of them will have a passionate interest/active participation in that subject area. Most, if not all, gain instructor rating via 'instructor qualification courses', rather than pre-existing experience (cross-over).

4. As the area becomes more marketed/popular, a wider spectrum of instructors get themselves qualified, entirely via 'fast-track' training courses - often taken with the third-generation instructor (trainers). Likewise, their experience at tech diver level is also a product entirely of the PADI system. This generation learns the 'PADI way' via instructor (trainers) who only know the 'PADI way'. Little, if any, experience of alternative agencies/approaches is distilled at this level of evolution.

5. Beyond that, subsequent instructor/diver generations are primarily developed via third and forth generation trainers. They learn PADI, from someone who learned PADI, from someone who learned PADI.... and the worm has turned.

That's how I see it. It doesn't mean that an individual from 'X' generation is necessarily good or bad - but helps explain certain motivations, breadth of experience and/or scope of understanding that may exist in a given instructor. It does, however, demonstrate that a specific PADI course can vary dramatically in quality, dependent on the instructor's prior involvement in the subject area and/or the experience distilled to them by their trainers.

A complicated way of saying 'it's about the instructor, not the agency'... but the instructor's capability is a product of own their training - and that training is dictated by the scope of their exposure to the wider tech community.

Back onto topic of the media materials..... I have no idea who's responsible for their selection. I'm guessing that those involved with translating 1st generation experience into standardized materials are rarely going to be members of that initial 'cross-over' generation. Hence, the 'faux-pax' that are obvious to the wider (participating) tech community, but not so to the PADI generations who follow in the footsteps of the 'commercially focused' generations.

Anyway... rambling, incoherent, rant suspended.... I don't like the photos used in the PADI tech materials. I think they're embarrassing within a community that demands higher standards...

What I take away from this is that if I wanted instruction from a PADI instructor, I would make sure that they weren't trained by PADI themselves. I'd make sure they were from catagory 1 or 2 above.
Thanks for you assessment on this Devon, it's always good to read something objective from someone that has some insight.

-Mitch

 

[loquat149]

Here's a shot of him demonstrating how to carry O2 bottles.

Dave

 

[JamesK]

That's a screen shot from the movie right?

 

[Dive-aholic]

I'm still wondering how people verify the cylinder they are breathing from when they mount their deco cylinders on top. Deco cylinders must be located where they can be visualized before being breathed from.