PADI vs NAUI

[ParaFrogInstructor]

There are great instructors and there are awful instructors. Most fall somewhere in between. That being said, is a PADI instructor better than NAUI or vice versa? It depends on the instructor. Should recovering an unconscious diver be taught in an OW class? Absolutely. If there is a .0001% chance that the unconscious diver might live if rescued it is still better than a flat zero. To further my point, it is not an "unnecessary" skill as some have said here. Having the tools, even if they're rusty, are better than no tools at all. Yes, divers should practice emergency ascents and buddy breathing, but the number that don't probably outweigh the number that do. That being said, they are still tools in their boxes. Why should the recovery of an unconscious diver be any different?
I respect both agencies. I really do. I have friends across the spectrum of dive agencies. There are good, bad, awesome, and terrible in each. If there is any one factor that distinguishes one agency from the other is the training material required for the course. One cannot compare the PADI instructor manual (which is slightly thicker than the NAUI DM text) to the many course materials required by NAUI for theirs. Add to that PADI's definition of Master Diver (not DM) to NAUI's. Five specialties and you send $25 and get your MD card? Really? No test? Its a BS card that says nothing about one's actual diving ability. For example - buoyancy card, photography card, fish ID card, AD card (only good to 90'), and deep diver (that gives you NAUI's AD 130' limit) - and you can be a MD?! NAUI's MD requires a test and is basically DM without being commercial. Big difference.
Compare the swim quals for each to be an instructor and there's no comparison. NAUI also requires massive study in the science of diving. Most PADI divers can't explain Boyle's Law, ambient pressure, or even how a first stage works. Scuba is 90% science and 10% swimming.
One last point: NASA, Disney, the US military, and other educational institutions use NAUI exclusively. It has little to do with cost or popularity - PADI would win hands-down there. It has everything to do with education and textbook studies. "Dive Safety Through Education" is more than a catchy motto to NAUI, and its curriculum is intense. I would put an average fresh-out-of-school NAUI instructor's knowledge against the same level PADI instructor's any day of the week. That's not bias -- its fact.

 

[DCBC]

It has little to do with cost or popularity - PADI would win hands-down there. It has everything to do with education and textbook studies.

You bring-up some valid points. When comparing any two organizations however, I think that you have to focus on their aims and objectives. Why were they created? Why do they continue to exist?

PADI was created as a for-profit corporation to increase the sales of diving equipment and to generate income for the owners of PADI. In this way, PADI is like any other successful business. It has developed its 'product line' to meet the desires of its consumers. From this perspective it has been amazingly successful! Simply put, PADI is about making money.

NAUI on the other hand, is a not-for profit corporation created to promote safe SCUBA instruction. NAUI is its members; each member 'votes in' the Board of Directors which in-turn guides the organization. “Dive Safety Through Education” is more than a motto; it forms the heart of NAUI's business plan. Over the years however, it has realized that it exists in an environment with PADI and to a degree, competition is a reality.

What I've seen over the past 42 years that I've been teaching (at times for both PADI and NAUI) is that the training standard (bar) has dropped. PADI has led this process and other Agencies have capitulated (to a greater or lesser extent) in order to stay competitive. PADI (like Wal-Mart) holds to Sam Walton's philosophy: "The secret of successful retailing is to give your customers what they want." The focus isn't on what they need, but what they want. In today's age, what that amounts to is less quality (content) at a cheaper price.

The philosophies of PADI and NAUI are just different. There are some interesting dynamics that stem from this difference... SCUBA Instructors can teach through a number of Agencies. The environment today has moved away from independent Instructors and Diving Clubs to Shops (this too is largely by PADI design). People interested in learning how to dive are somewhat restricted to the Dive Shops in their local area and often their only choice is PADI. So it begins; they walk the PADI road. Similarly, if a Diver is interested in becoming an Instructor (and subsequently teach through a shop), it's no surprise that they may become a PADI Instructor...

All Diving Instructors want to teach safely. PADI however, places a greater degree of restrictions on their Instructors than any other Agency that I'm aware of. Instructors teach in the best way they can within the Standards. They must however not deviate from the "PADI solution." Understandably, these Instructors identify with PADI and defend it passionately. This of course is my opinion; which has been solidified through my experiences. I continue to have many friends who currently are PADI Instructors and DMs. Many of these I've trained (including my son).

There is no doubt that PADI has revolutionized the Diving Industry. Their method has worked for them spectacularly! There are a huge number of people that dive today that wouldn't, if PADI hadn't existed. I think that this is largely because many would have been put-off by the requirement of a more physically demanding path to certification, increased duration of the program and tougher testing. Be that what it may, I'm not blind to the benefit. I do however shutter when I hear a Civil Court rule that a Diver's death was the result of insufficient training course Standards.

Although I employ more updated methods in my instructional process, I teach the same course that I taught 40 years ago. NAUI allows me to do so. It establishes 'Minimum Standards' and gives me the freedom to go past that. This meets the needs of some students, but to others it's not what they want. I refer the latter to a local PADI shop. As always, it comes down to the client.

I know many fine Instructors from both agencies. There are differences in the quality of Instructors; as there are differences in the quality of organizations.

 

[Peter Guy]

Should recovering an unconscious diver be taught in an OW class? Absolutely. If there is a .0001% chance that the unconscious diver might live if rescued it is still better than a flat zero.

It is your opinion, therefore, that an OW student should be taught EVERYTHING that has a greater than 0.0001% of helping a diver survive? If so, how long will you class be?

Me, I believe it is more beneficial to use the time more wisely and focus on those items which have a REALISTIC chance of helping a diver survive and be a good diver. YMMV

 

[Simon-]

Any instructor, regardless of agency, that teaches only to the minimum standards, should not be teaching.

Every course can have added value easily integrated and the students will always benefit

 

[boulderjohn]

. To further my point, it is not an "unnecessary" skill as some have said here. Having the tools, even if they're rusty, are better than no tools at all. Yes, divers should practice emergency ascents and buddy breathing, but the number that don't probably outweigh the number that do. That being said, they are still tools in their boxes. W

There is a pretty strong argument that in some cases having a rusty skill is worse than not having the skill at all. To use your tool analogy, using a poorly maintained tool can be more dangerous than going to an alternate skill. Your mention of buddy breathing is a good example.

Glen Egstrom's study on buddy breathing indicated that student divers had to perform it correctly 17-21 times before they had truly mastered it, and they had to practice it regularly to maintain the skill. Analysis of accident data over a long period of time showed that performing buddy breathing poorly was all too likely to result in two fatalities rather than one. A little over a year ago in Key Largo a woman was given a rental regulator set that did not include an alternate air source. As luck would have it, she ended up having to deal with an OOA situation, so she had to do it by buddy breathing, which she had not practiced since certification. Both the OOA diver and she died.

Since the CESA can be performed safely by a single OOA diver without a whole lot of practice, a number of agencies have decided that an OOA diver without an alternate air sources is better off with a CESA, so buddy breathing is a tool they would rather the students not have in that belt at all.

 

[lowviz]

...//... My biggest question up front is .. Realizing that a good instructor is the upmost importance, what cerfication agency is recommended... PADI or NAUI?

The quality of the student is of greater importance...

Not innate skills, not ability to learn, not blind determination, but a willingness and personal commitment to properly learn how to enter an environment that does not support human life.

 

[SeaCobra]

Maybe its time to put a little more time into our scuba courses?

 

[lowviz]

Maybe its time *for the student* to put a little more time *and effort* into our *meaning YOUR own* scuba courses?

Yeah.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

32 hours. 16 classroom, 16 pool, plus checkouts. Usually another what 10 -12 hours over two days doing three dives a day. so about 45 total. It's what mine end up being.

 

[Peter Guy]

SeaCobra asked

Maybe its time to put a little more time into our scuba courses?

OK, how much is "a little more?" How much time IS needed for any course, let alone an OW one?

As BoulderJohn is fond of pointing out, at least within the PADI system, time is a variable -- what is the constant is the ability of the student to have "mastered" the skills -- i.e., being able to perform the skills in a "reasonably comfortable, fluid, repeatable manner as would be expected of a diver at that certification level." IF the OW student meets that standard, what does it matter how long (or short) the course might be?