PADI vs NAUI

[Quero]

Perspective is the way you see things, ie. an opinion.

No, Zack, a perspective is not the same as an opinion, even though it is how you see things. One's perspective may be obstructed by draperies over a window or a shadow or something else, and it may be enhanced by various means as well, such as using a mirror to see around a curve or shining a light into a dark corner. What I'm trying to do is to pull the curtains back, shine a light, hold up a mirror so you can gain a different perspective. But instead of looking, you just squeeze your eyes shut, Zach, and say that whatever I and others tell you is behind that curtain or around that corner or in that shadow doesn't exist simply because you can't see it from your limited perspective and you won't look.

While I'm not a lawyer you can't discredit agency standards when talking about a plaintiff vs. defendant because that is what it may very well come down to. Their duty of care is dictated by the standards they follow via the agency they teach under, if they can dictate their own reasonable extended standards, that by all means increases the potential (not necessarily output) for safer divers.

Zack, you're simply wrong here. Duty of care is a legal standard based on how a reasonable person could be expected to perform in a given situation. It is not linked to any agency standard and it doesn't change according to the standards of different agencies, and certainly not because an instructor takes it on him/herself to extend agency standards. In other words, the duty of care required of an instructor will be the same regardless of whether that instructor is teaching at/above the (minimum) standards required by his/her agency. Look it up. And while you're at it, look up past negligence cases involving scuba diving and see how many of them focus on the agency standards. You'll find that cases revolve around only duty of care and that when agency standards come into play at all, it's because an instructor has violated them. In that sense, it wouldn't matter whether the agency standards were PADI ones or NAUI ones--if the instructor has violated standards, that will be held against him/her in considering a failure to maintain the appropriate duty of care.

Not that I expect you to know this, but I was certified under the PADI system with what I feel exceptional instructors.

I do know this, as a matter of fact. And yet I'm sort of fascinated by your case because I've read lots and lots of your posts expounding on a variety of topics about which you are not fully informed, and yet about which you continue to make categorical statements as if you had insights gained through expertise.

 

[261311]

It is probably my perspective of it (yukyuk), but I don't know how you'd give an opinion based on anything but your perspective of what you've experienced. I could see this an issue if someone thought their opinion or perspective of things were scientific fact, but I do not. Does that mean I feel my perspective is something that is unable to shift? No, though I'm sure you'll tend to disagree with this.

I don't disagree with the second point as I thought I was operating under the assumption that a student may argue judgement calls instructors make based on standards, and by which those standards are based on have either a ruling in their favour or against by other means of evaluation. Increasing the standards/ having minimum fluid standards may shy away the incredibly abusive people in the first place who would take the advantage of multiple evaluation possibilities and marginal success or failure pending on the eye of those evaluating at the time. I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time where an instructor certified someone who through the entire course responded yes when asked if they understood, performed the tasks in a just above acceptable manner at that time and then later died resulting in the family suing based on some preconceived notion of negligence from the parties involved. This especially being true if an agency isn't there at all to backup those same standards they set. I realize I'm talking about the smallest amounts of cases the world would probably see even within diving itself. It's understandable that usually it's a reckless instructor of whom are harming their students by not teaching them things, rather than the student being incapable of the tasks at hand.

Be fascinated, it keeps me learning. The difference between me being wrong on the internet means little to me when it could mean a life. I wouldn't be able to learn as much if I just silently remained ignorant in many cases. As for my instructors, I say they're exceptional based on how I left in confidence and what I felt I learned, especially by comparison to some discussions that float around about dive shops ripping people off or truly terrible instructors. My curiosity however extends far past any sort of basic scuba lessons will reasonably get me and in the matter of personal comfort. The only difference between myself and someone else I guess is I don't mind getting it wrong and looking dumb if I can learn something, that and a complete lack of grace

 

[DCBC]

Now I know of four... Does not knowing every agency that requires gas management make me any less of an instructor or a diver?

Lets look at it this way, PADI is the only Agency which I'm aware of, that doesn't require a Basic Diver to know how to calculate/project gas consumption (SAC) and require competence of this within their Standards. Perhaps someone can enlighten me if this has changed?

Again, according to DAN, "The initial triggering event that began the sequence leading to death was most often insufficient gas." To me, that's a concern. Diver's should be trained in a manner that maximizes safety. Certification Agencies should insist that specific and necessary aspects are covered in their training programs and that Students have proven skills in areas that are in their best interests to obtain competence. Agencies shouldn't leave this to Instructors to provide such skills voluntarily. That's the reason for Agency Standards in the first-place.

Perhaps we should stop making excuses for various training Agencies and recognize their shortcomings. Instructors should pressure them to include what most (including a Civil Court) would think is a requirement for certification (the Court in Quebec gave the opinion that the training Standards of one particular Agency was insufficient in the case of three separate diving deaths which occurred in that Province). How can this be in the best interests of Divers or the Diving Industry? Cutting requirements / Standards to make it faster and easier to be certified may make a course more competitive, but it does little to promote responsible diving education.

 

[nimoh]

First, I'll say that I am a firm believer in gas management, and in ensuring that I have enough gas to achieve dive objectives safely.

However, if I could play devil's advocate for a bit. Perhaps it is PADI's position that calculating gas consumption is unnecessary for the new OW diver. I believe it is a PADI standard that divers are to finish all dives with a minimum of 500psi, and should begin their ascent before they get there. Since OW divers should be no deeper than 60', I think that is a reasonable gas strategy for a maximum of a 2 minute ascent, although they would be carrying a lot of extra gas for those shallower dives. Even if they do get down to 500psi in an AL80, that is enough gas for two divers to make a 2 minute ascent (unless their breathing rate is upwards of 5cuft/min).

I have seen many discussions on information overload for students, perhaps this is one of those things where PADI gives students a standard gas management system that will work in all situations within their training, rather than explaining gas management. I would however argue (with myself) that AOW at least should include detailed gas planning.

The obvious problem with this comes when an OW diver realizes that they are certified to 130', even though PADI recommends they not go past 60' and use this gas management strategy for a 100' dive.

 

[Simon-]

Lets look at it this way, PADI is the only Agency which I'm aware of, that doesn't require a Basic Diver to know how to calculate/project gas consumption (SAC) and require competence of this within their Standards. Perhaps someone can enlighten me if this has changed?

It may not be a firm requirement, but I and the other instructors I know, still cover this in OW courses.

 

[DCBC]

It may not be a firm requirement, but I and the other instructors I know, still cover this in OW courses.

Why isn't it in the Standards (in your opinion)? Should it be?

There are also differences between Agencies. Every Agency can stand improvement. Is this done in silence? Certainly not from what Peter and BoulderJohn have accomplished within the PADI organization. Unfortunately, not all Instructors are as responsible.

Should diving conditions reasonably cause a course training standard to be modified? Some like me would say absolutely; others would disagree and I'm sure other Instructors don't really care or haven't thought about the question.

I believe that one set of Universal Standards has an advantage (quality assurance for one), but what about the negatives? An Instructor's ability to 'upwardly modify' training standards i.e. what is required for certification (or not) is a vital difference between PADI and NAUI. As this pertains to the OP, I think it's a valid comment.

 

[Simon-]

Why isn't it in the standards? I don't know, I didn't write them.

Should it be? I think there are plenty of items that could be included into official publications.

Why should a change in conditions necessitate a change in standards? A prudent, responsible instructor will make the required changes to the dive. Doesn't require a change of standards to do that. As long as all items are covered and mastered, the standards would have been met, plus what ever other input the instructor wishes to add, so long as that doesn't break the standards or impose unfeasible requirements on a student.

The one aspect of the "freedom" that NAUI instructors have that isn't black and white to me is this. Who is there to check that the extra item(s) that the instructor adds are fair, reasonable and related to the level of training? For example, would it be ok for the instructor to insist that an OW student carries out an 800m tired diver tow, wearing one fin, one hand tied behind his back, wearing a bcd 4 sizes too big, towing a person 300 lbs heavier than them?

 

[Scott]

Why isn't it in the Standards (in your opinion)? Should it be?

While PADI doesn’t specifically state, calculate your air consumption for a specific dive, it does talk about air, depth and time limits in planning section of the OW video, has quiz and final exam questions regarding the topic.
I believe, ok hope, PADI left it to the instructors’ to exceed the standard and cover the topic. Unfortunately with the ‘check a box’ instructor, the last time they watched the OW video or read the OW manual was during their OW course or looked at it in preparation for the IDC/IE. All they know is what is on the slates or the knowledge reviews.

Should it be? Yes. We will see how the topic along with others will be covered in the updated OW course slated for 2014.

 

[DCBC]

...The one aspect of the "freedom" that NAUI instructors have that isn't black and white to me is this. Who is there to check that the extra item(s) that the instructor adds are fair, reasonable and related to the level of training? For example, would it be ok for the instructor to insist that an OW student carries out an 800m tired diver tow, wearing one fin, one hand tied behind his back, wearing a bcd 4 sizes too big, towing a person 300 lbs heavier than them?

All Instructor activity/actions are monitored by the training agency. In the case that you suggest, is this exercise reasonable? I would think not. As I've pointed-out previously, negligence is an act or omission. What did the Instructor do (or what did he fail to do) that was reasonable under the circumstances? This may have repercussions in case of an accident, as far as the Instructor's liability insurance company is concerned. The Instructor must act in a reasonable manner. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the Instructor, Student, Agency or an Expert Witness thinks. The only thing that matters, is what the Court thinks...

 

[The Chairman]

Perhaps we should stop making excuses for various training Agencies and recognize their shortcomings.

All Instructor activity/actions are monitored by the training agency.

At the same time, let's not overstate any particular agency's qualities. Your second statement is so false on so many levels that I have to wonder why you made it. All??? They monitor very little and mostly when there is an accident or a report. I've seen too many bad NAUI divers for this to be to be true. Mind you, I've seen a lot of poor and good instructors come from many agencies for me to believe that it has anything to do with the agency.