PADI vs NAUI

[Thalassamania]

It is not just a question of more training, it is a question of sufficient training of sufficient quality to reach the definition of Competent that I posted earlier. Just more of the same-same doesn't get you there.

I think I have stated some goals a few times: to decrease diving risk while at the same time assuring that those taking up diving are provided with enough information to be able to provide informed consent (e.g., being honest about the actual risks).

My point about more training at the front end resulting in more divers is just in answer to the BS that if you make the course longer, or more difficult or more expensive you will wreak havoc on the industry. I would argue that with optimum enlargement of the entry level course you'd just sell less certifications and crappy agency books, and masks, fins and snorkels but will sell a lot more quality books, dry suits, can lights, cameras, etc.

 

[Puffer Fish]

Basic scuba, that would have been in the pool. More advanced training and pretty much anywhere. Someone turns your air of, you just turn it back on...they pull your mask off and turn your air off, and you....well turn your air back on and put your mask on. I've done a ditch and don in over 70 ft of water. It's only scary if you are not comfortable with your water skills and your gear. Over the years I've had just about everything go wrong that can, and some of that training comes in handy...you never know.

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.

 

[scootsity]

I think many of us are in agreement about this. So, what's the next step? How do we affect change?

 

[endurodog]

Thalassamania I have not read all of your post on here and I have not seen your reasons or others for wanting longer courses. Now you do say increase in safety. So that I can comment on. Is there a safety problem that we are addressing? Is there an increased accident rate that was brought on by these shorter courses? I do know the answer to this and that answer is no. Accident rates have decreased over time. I understand that there are many different factors that effect that but there is no spike in accident rates.

The arguement of increased training in my mind has 2 sides. One is the people saying "Take more training because it will increase your enjoyment of the sport." The other side is "The current training sucks, it's all wrong and you need more training because all these 2 day divers suck".

The 2nd argument comes across as an elitist group pushing thier agenda.

FWIW I was certified in a long college cert years ago with horse collar BCs and a drill sgt type instructor (NAUI).

I see the benifit of shorter courses, I see more people in the sport and that benifits the dive community in a number of ways that I have outlined. While I like more training and participate in it on a personal level and highly recomment it for all I just don't think the current basic certification is as bad or problematic as is being made out by some on SB.

 

[BoltSnap]

Thalassamania I have not read all of your post on here and I have not seen your reasons or others for wanting longer courses. Now you do say increase in safety. So that I can comment on. Is there a safety problem that we are addressing? Is there an increased accident rate that was brought on by these shorter courses? I do know the answer to this and that answer is no. Accident rates have decreased over time. I understand that there are many different factors that effect that but there is no spike in accident rates.

The arguement of increased training in my mind has 2 sides. One is the people saying "Take more training because it will increase your enjoyment of the sport." The other side is "The current training sucks, it's all wrong and you need more training because all these 2 day divers suck".

The 2nd argument comes across as an elitist group pushing thier agenda.

FWIW I was certified in a long college cert years ago with horse collar BCs and a drill sgt type instructor (NAUI).

I see the benifit of shorter courses, I see more people in the sport and that benifits the dive community in a number of ways that I have outlined. While I like more training and participate in it on a personal level and highly recomment it for all I just don't think the current basic certification is as bad or problematic as is being made out by some on SB.

It is not only safety that we need to address here but we also need to address protecting the environment (poorly trained divers are destroying the reefs), diver drop out (average certified diver/student dives for less than a year and never dives again. Due, partially, to subconscious sense of self preservation), dive industry financial status and several other issues that I can't think of now. All of these factors are running on their respective negative side. All of these factors are largely effected by the poor training certification agencies are providing to the potential divers they train.

Proper diver training is a key factor in addressing most of the ills that befall scuba diving as a recreational activity. A better trained diver will be a safer diver who will protect the environment and will continue diving and would help improve the financial status of all that are involved in the dive business.

Although I may not agree on all of the time requirements Whiteshark/Thal is advocating, I certainly agree at least with the "spirit" of what he is advocating. Better trained diver is a win/win/win for all that are involved in this great recreational activity!!

 

[endurodog]

Burhan again you bring up the safety issue but we have a low accident rate that has not increased with shorter courses, actually as the courses got shorter we had a decrease in accident rates.

As far as divers damaging the reefs. In that mind set the way to address that problem would be some more buoyancy control (maybe some more on gear config too) not all those other things. How much would have to be given to have a positive impact on divers damaging reefs? 1 hour more, 10 hours more, of buoyancy control?

I am a firm believer that we have more divers in the activity because of the shorter courses. If we increase the length then the cost in dollars and time increases and there will be fewer divers. More divers increases awareness of reef issues and gives political clout when political solutions are sought to reef threat issues.

There has to be a balance on all of this and that is really what we are talking about, how much is enough.

I'm going to back out of this debate now, points have been made. Good diving to all of you.

 

[scootsity]

I was considering that counterargument, endurodog, purely as a devil's advocate type of statement.
Tearing up reefs through poor buoyancy control, poor streamlining, etc is bad for reefs.
Though, it is a bit of a drop in the bucket relative to invasives, eutrophication/nutrient loadings, overharvesting of herbivores, and everything else we do to the oceans.

I mean, in the Caribbean, more divers probably mean more dead lionfish, right?

 

[BoltSnap]

My point is that we are not trying to address one issue or another in isolation, we have LOTS of issues that need to be addressed including that of the severe diver attrition rate we have in diving. Better diver training is key factor in this matter. I am not sure that increasing the number of newly certified divers per year is actually a measure of the health of the industry alone. I prefer to produce a more capable diver who will continue to dive for several years, buy equipment, take up upper level training programs, help protect the environment and entice non-divers to take up the sport than certifying lots of divers who would quit the sport in less than a year without contributing anything positive to any aspect of the sport except to the pockets of the certification agencies.

You bring up a very valid point, "how much is enough." 2 day or 3 day, etc. courses are not going to do it for sure. Are 40, 50 or 100 hours enough?? It all depends on the "level" of the diver expected and the type of diving he will be doing after he is certified. I'd say that 40 - 50 hours for confined water and classroom in addition to 10 open water dives would be sufficient for entry level (as long as these hours are being used efficiently).

 

[Thalassamania]

What is a low accident rate? We discussed that a while back:

The facts with respect to football, baseball and auto racing:

FOOTBALL: There were three fatalities directly related to football during the 2005 football season. Two were associated with high school football and one with professional football. In 2005 there were 12 indirect fatalities. Eight were associated with high school football, two with college football, one youth league, and one professional football.

BASEBALL & SOFTBALL: Between 1973 and 1995, 88 baseball deaths were reported and of these deaths 68 were due to ball impact injuries.

AUTO RACING: From 1990 through July of 2002, at least 287 people died in U.S. auto racing, including 29 spectator deaths. Head and neck injuries killed at least half the drivers.

I have a major problem with the word "safe" as in "diving is a safe activity." Safe means, "without risk." We should not be trying to make diving "safe." We should be bending our efforts toward minimizing the risk.

Sounds like the same thing no? NO! It's a glass half full/half empty question. As long as we continue to use the "S" word we are deceiving folks and lulling them into a stupor. When we talk about minimizing or reducing risk, folks have an entirely different attitude.

For the approximately 1,800,000 football participants in 2005, the rate of direct fatalities was 0.17 per 100,000 participants. To reach that level of risk there would have to be more than 52 million active divers in the US.

Play with the numbers a little more. There are a little less than 22 player hours per game with about 100 player hours at the field, so each player averages .25 hours per game (more or less) and about 15 practice hours per week. So lets round down to make it more dangerous and say that each player is exposed to the risks of football for about ten hours per week and 100 hours per season. So for 180 million risk exposure hours there were three fatalities. Carrying this over to diving, to have the same level of risk there would have to have been over five billion diver hours spent underwater (or more than 20 hours underwater for every person in the United States), not likely.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[BoltSnap]

Draw your own conclusions.

Stay in bed and never leave your home.

(I did this for 3 months and went crazy).