PADI vs NAUI

[Cacia]

There were very few fatalities in the early days, fatalities peaked in the late 1970s.

I learned in Florida in the 70's and it seemed somebody died every week in a cave... eek, I just dated myself
I remember my parents getting CO2 cartridges for a bc and it was high tech, baby
I wonder why they were not just blowing in to those bladders?

Our NAUI instructors (1974) my dad hired because we were all going to Bob Soto's in the Cayman's, and the former Navy Seal/Instructor told my dad "he is seven??!!" about my brother. MY dad said "look, I need him certed because I have already paid for this GD trip"...they gave him some "jr" cert, he didnt have to take the word problems math after the multiple choice.

In Cayman, we dived to 120 ft and then all argued about why he was so goofy on the bottom.

Those instructors had me buddy breath deep in some freezing rock quarry (Dec) in No. Virginia, it did not go well with an numb face.

I survived my dad, nothing can be that dangerous.

 

[Bogtrotter]

I guess it's not illegal to dive without certification, so really if you have your own equipment there is nothing really stopping anyone from just going out and doing it and for that matter becoming very good at it. Someone on a recent dive told me his friend isn't certified but they go off and dive quite regularly. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if he was a better diver than a lot of certified divers with their multiple dive club 'merit badges'...I mean 'qualifications'.

 

[Thalassamania]

... Someone on a recent dive told me his friend isn't certified but they go off and dive quite regularly. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if he was a better diver than a lot of certified divers with their multiple dive club 'merit badges'...I mean 'qualifications'.

That is at the base of this discussion: is current O/W certification worth the plastic it is printed on; and if it is not, why not? The thesis has been advanced that it is because the, "way the world learns to dive" has changed and sucks; and what's worse is that NAUI has., in large part, followed the path down the same rathole.

 

[Bogtrotter]

As it stands now it seems the O/W cert is the carte blanche to dive anywhere and pretty much allow you to do anything within safe diving parameters on air. As everyone knows you are not generally required to have a more 'advanced' level recreational dive card. Lets face it, operators generally really only care when your last dive was and, not always, how many dives you have done. So shouldn't O/W be fairly rigorous so novice divers are already very competent in basic skills, buoyancy and confidence level?

 

[Thalassamania]

I think so, lots of folks here don't agree (or see competent differently).

 

[scootsity]

This is my first post on scubaboard.

Anyway.

I can't speak to the original topic of this thread "NAUI vs PADI" as my certification is from PADI. But I think this thread has taken a turn for a bit more of questioning how dive instruction can be improved, and I would like to offer my opinions.

And I can't speak for every instructor, this is simply what I remember from when I got my PADI card 10 years ago.

My Grandfather was the first member of my family certified, he started diving in the 50s using the CO2 tank out of a vending machine. Some time later (in the early 70s), my Dad received his cert from YMCA.

Needless to say, I grew up around the sport.

My Dad and Grandfather really love diving, but they learned from the very beginning that, while rewarding, it also has the potential to be one of the most dangerous activities in which one can partake. This is something my Dad instilled in me. That, at any time, something can go wrong, and you have to be able to cooly, calmly, and logically solve that. There's a lot at stake, not just your life, but also your buddy's life. He taught me that if you are entering into a situation you feel unprepared to calmly solve, the time to figure that out is with your head still above water, and that it's okay to walk away and come back when you have more experience.

I am very grateful for those lessons, because I can honestly say that at no point did my PADI course really make me feel the full gravity of making a mistake underwater. I felt like I was learning the mechanics of a sport. I though it was fun, and I learned a lot of mechanics necessary for good diving. But, I have found that when you think about those mechanics in the context of being life saving, you put a LOT more emphasis into doing them to the best of your ability.

The point that was emphasized by my Dad and Grandfather wasn't just that you need to know what to do in an emergency, but that you also need to be able to stay calm and do it.

My Dad would come up with all kinds of scenarios just to see if I could stay calm and figure it out. I am a much better diver for it. And frankly, diving with anyone who doesn't have both that mentality and the experience to calmly react to any situation would be a scary thing, indeed.

I think students would feel much more inclined toward more extensive training (which is to say, that the fastest, cheapest course wouldn't necessarily be the most marketable) in Open Water training if the consequences were truly instilled in them.

 

[daniel1948]

I once met a fellow who was diving back in the day of improvised tanks and whatnot, and who was a NAUI instructor back when they would do things like sneak up behind you and turn your air off, or make you dive to the bottom (pool or shallow ocean, I don't recall) and there assemble and don your gear. There were other skills as well that are no longer required.

I could not have become a diver back then. Is it a good thing or a bad thing that it's easier now? I don't know. I'm glad the requirements have been loosened to my ability level. Equipment is more reliable today and emergencies less frequent among recreational divers who follow the basic safety rules. Diving within recreational limits is no longer the most dangerous of popular recreational activities, though the dangers are real and must be respected. Recognizing my limits I do no technical diving and never enter overhead environments. My instruction did not teach me the extreme skills my friend spoke of, but it did stress the critical importance of the safety rules and of diving within my limits.

There will always be daredevils. I happen to think that climbing Everest is crazy. I have no experience of how other folks get certified. I was certified in a remote location where I was the only student in the "class." I do think that small class size, lots of personal instructor attention, and stressing the safety rules are important if people are to learn to practice this very enjoyable recreation safely.

 

[DCBC]

An often discussed question amongst Instructors of my era is "How much do students really need to know?" I suppose that today that question is still valid. I believe that the answer really depends upon the following:

1. Is the student to be certified to dive unsupervised (without Divemaster or Instructor supervision)?
2. What hazardous conditions are prevalent in the local training environment?
3. The level of comfort and desires of the student and the Instructor.

The difference between PADI and NAUI is largely that PADI's diver training program is finite. In other words, the instructor is to train in a specified sequence and a specific curriculm is given. The Instructor has little leeway; as s/he may not exceed this requirement. NAUI has a specified "MINIMUM STANDARD," however the Instructor is free (and encouraged) to exceed these standards. For example, if an instructor wished to expand upon the in-water evaluation requirement (as s/he deemed necessary for local rough water conditions), the Instructor could make these additional requirements REQUIRED for certification.

The downside to this is that a NAUI course given by me, may well be different than another one offered by a dive shop down the street. The only consistantcy is that they both will meet "minimum standards."

The answer to the main question, "How much training does a student require?" depends. My standard for certification is significantly higher than the minimum. Those that seek to learn as little as possible go elsewhere and that's just fine with me.

 

[Thalassamania]

I once met a fellow who was diving back in the day of improvised tanks and whatnot, and who was a NAUI instructor back when they would do things like sneak up behind you and turn your air off, or make you dive to the bottom (pool or shallow ocean, I don't recall) and there assemble and don your gear. There were other skills as well that are no longer required.

I could not have become a diver back then. Is it a good thing or a bad thing that it's easier now? I don't know. I'm glad the requirements have been loosened to my ability level. Equipment is more reliable today and emergencies less frequent among recreational divers who follow the basic safety rules. Diving within recreational limits is no longer the most dangerous of popular recreational activities, though the dangers are real and must be respected. Recognizing my limits I do no technical diving and never enter overhead environments. My instruction did not teach me the extreme skills my friend spoke of, but it did stress the critical importance of the safety rules and of diving within my limits.

There will always be daredevils. I happen to think that climbing Everest is crazy. I have no experience of how other folks get certified. I was certified in a remote location where I was the only student in the "class." I do think that small class size, lots of personal instructor attention, and stressing the safety rules are important if people are to learn to practice this very enjoyable recreation safely.

The things that you are describing as "extreme skills" Wayne and I see as normal preparation for minimizing the risk of diving. My view (and I expect that Wayne would concur) is that diving without that sort of training is a daredevil approach and is akin to tightrope walking without a net. We both have rather unique perspectives on diving safety as a result of a critical difference in our backgrounds when compared to other instructors or course directors, we have not only been responsible for teaching people to dive and to teach diving but we have had to live with the results, that is to say we continued to be responsible to our employers for those individuals' safety as divers and product as instructors for as long as they were associated with the institutions that we worked for, that changes your view. Combine that perspective with ten thousand, or more, dives each and you start to grasp why we see being properly prepared to dive with minimum risk they way in which we do.

An often discussed question amongst Instructors of my era is "How much do students really need to know?" I suppose that today that question is still valid. I believe that the answer really depends upon the following:

1. Is the student to be certified to dive unsupervised (without Divemaster or Instructor supervision)?
2. What hazardous conditions are prevalent in the local training environment?
3. The level of comfort and desires of the student and the Instructor.

The difference between PADI and NAUI is largely that PADI's diver training program is finite. In other words, the instructor is to train in a specified sequence and a specific curriculm is given. The Instructor has little leeway; as s/he may not exceed this requirement. NAUI has a specified "MINIMUM STANDARD," however the Instructor is free (and encouraged) to exceed these standards. For example, if an instructor wished to expand upon the in-water evaluation requirement (as s/he deemed necessary for local rough water conditions), the Instructor could make these additional requirements REQUIRED for certification.

The downside to this is that a NAUI course given by me, may well be different than another one offered by a dive shop down the street. The only consistantcy is that they both will meet "minimum standards."

The answer to the main question, "How much training does a student require?" depends. My standard for certification is significantly higher than the minimum. Those that seek to learn as little as possible go elsewhere and that's just fine with me.

Me too.

 

[scootsity]

Regarding a full ditch and recovery. That was a challenge for me. I would perpetually throw my gear into my grandfather's apartment complex's pool and do it over and over again, until I got it quickly and easily (my Dad also required me to do this). And while this may not be a skill I will use everyday. When I accidentally got a piece of monofilament wrapped around my tank valve, and was able to easily whip off my rig, get the monofilament off, and don it again in under 30 seconds, I was glad I had practiced a zillion times in a pool.

I think the point of this is that the argument Thalassamania et al are making is that the mastery of these skills were once the norm. This norm was not established so that divers could do sat diving at hundreds of feet or go deco, they were the norm for all diving. A lot of these skills apply to situations that most of us hope to never be in. But, I personally would rather know what to do just in case (and be able to calmly do it), than be the the one in a million who gets myself into a bad situation and isn't comfortable getting out of it.

Effectively, training is about balancing risk. There is inherent risk in the sport, the question we as divers, and consumers of the product put out by PADI, NAUI, etc have to ask ourselves is what is the cost/benefit? I personally feel that the couple hundred hours of training (not to mention my Dad's tests) I have gone through was worth every (frequently frustrating and repetitive) moment and every penny, if it means that I survive, or am able to save another in a situation.