Recreational agency standards: Ranking and why?

[DCBC]

Be as it may, we can talk about the "problem" as much as we like..... but what is the solution?

I agree there is a problem, I'm perhaps in a different place from you as to the magnitude of the problem. Introducing 100hr courses as an industry standard will just kill the dive industry dead.

I don't think there is a quick fix. Those of us who as involved in both diver training and instructor training need to just chip away. We need to influence new divers to take some ownership of their training and make informed choices. As divers become more experienced, we need to encourage them to think outside a single agency, do different things, be excited about their diving.

For professional level candidates, we need to instill a culture of thought that doesn't necessarily exist today. We also need to instill a feeling in our DM and instructor candidates that it is not only OK to question, but a good thing to question.

I'm reminded of the "tipping point"... at some stage if we keep chipping away, then we will reach the tipping poiint and the "problem" will go away.

Hi Andy,

I agree, but unless people face the fact that a problem exists it will never be corrected. I wasn't talking about 100 hr programs, but as it is now it's not working.

 

[AndyNZ]

I agree, but unless people face the fact that a problem exists it will never be corrected. I wasn't talking about 100 hr programs, but as it is now it's not working.

It's like addiction.... the first step is recognising you're an addict...!

 

[DaleC]

One problem (challenge) I see is that today there are primarily two types of diver; the occasional/vacationing diver and the active/local diver but both tend to access SCUBA from the same OW courses.

The vacation diver (usually accompanied by a DM and/or doing fixed, known dive profiles) may feel that todays course outline gives them what they need to do what they want to do (= agency satisfaction). This diver, now in the majority, probably didn't exist (to any great degree) when older SCUBA courses first arose.

The active diver usually goes on quickly to diving without a DM and/or expands their diving to include unknown/challenging locales. These divers probably represent the early form of persons entering SCUBA education.

One agency I know tries to address this variation in diver mind set by offering their education in modular form (OW, AOW, rescue, specialties such a PPB and UW Nav, MD etc...) but some of the labels could be seen as misleading. OW probably gets you to a point where you can vacation dive easy profiles with a DM safely but an active diver may complain that it does not adequately train one to dive without a DM in less than ideal surroundings (still open water though). Many people I talk to think a proper OW course should include OW, AOW and PPB, UW Nav and Rescue.

Perhaps two OW courses should be presented:

A "Vacation SCUBA Diver" OW course for divers who want to experience SCUBA in a limited setting (short and cheap) and a...

"Independant SCUBA Diver" OW course that produces a competent, well rounded diver capable of planning and diving most rec profiles (longer, more expensive).

Those two options are within the decision making ability of most non divers as they usually know which type of diving they will do and can upgrade down the road if they find they really enjoy SCUBA as a pastime. It's simular to the modular format that several agencies use but more honest about the end results each would acheive.

Of course I am speaking in general terms. Exceptions to the above examples obviously exist.

 

[cloudswinger]

Bear with me on this one..... but in McD's does market itself like this - in New Zealand at least. For the last 2-3 years at least, TV adverts have had a growing focus on "the healthy option", claims that you can go to McD's and have a meal with less than 2g of fat (a salad, but you have to leave the dressing off) and of course the sheer genius of the McCafe.... gourmet food and fine espresso coffee, whilst the kids have their happy meal.

From this, I take two things:

1. Regionalisation is important, as much as standardisation.... if you walk into McD's here, you'll still get a big mac (stable brand image) plus regional variation driven by listening to the consumer

2. Big organisations that we feel don't listen to the consumer.... well maybe they do?


Despite this thread being about all agencies, I will limit myself to PADI.... PADI standards are the big mac. Where ever you walk into a PADI dive centre, you should have the expectation of always being able to find the big mac (and clean toilets, if you're in SE Asia - very useful!). But the salads and wraps should be unique to that environment. There should be more than just the big mac. It is up to the individual dive centres to work out what they want to put on the menu that extend the core brand image.

Maybe I'm stretching the analogy too far here!?

But if consumers educate themselves (about dive training, about healthier meal options...) then they will create a culture of change, even in the largest organisations.

The whole healthy option and McCafe has been advertised in the US for a while too, so I think that's a global plan for McD. I have seen regional menus, such as lobster rolls in the New England area. But a McD lobster roll didn't taste as good as one made in a local restaurant. It's for a tourist visiting the New England area who wants to try something local, without taking a chance on real local flavor. Someone wanting real healthy options would not consider McD. I don't think they have any organic options.

I have seen PADI localized specialities, such as Vietnam Diver, or Aquarium Diver. It just seems like an expensive souvenir.

I do think they listen to what consumers want, but do you realize what it is that consumers truly want? What most consumers say they want and what they pay for may be two different things.

One agency I know tries to address this variation in diver mind set by offering their education in modular form (OW, AOW, rescue, specialties such a PPB and UW Nav, MD etc...) but some of the labels could be seen as misleading. OW probably gets you to a point where you can vacation dive easy profiles with a DM safely but an active diver may complain that it does not adequately train one to dive without a DM in less than ideal surroundings (still open water though). Many people I talk to think a proper OW course should include OW, AOW and PPB, UW Nav and Rescue.

Perhaps two OW courses should be presented:

A "Vacation SCUBA Diver" OW course for divers who want to experience SCUBA in a limited setting (short and cheap) and a...

"Independant SCUBA Diver" OW course that produces a competent, well rounded diver capable of planning and diving most rec profiles (longer, more expensive).

I just saw a shop advertising the second option as "REAL SCUBA" which is defined as "REAL SCUBA is an acronym for realistic entry advanced level SCUBA" although it is basically the OW and AOW classes plus some extra stuff.

 

[DCBC]

Perhaps two OW courses should be presented:

A "Vacation SCUBA Diver" OW course for divers who want to experience SCUBA in a limited setting (short and cheap) and a...

"Independant SCUBA Diver" OW course that produces a competent, well rounded diver capable of planning and diving most rec profiles (longer, more expensive).

Hi Dale,

This is how it use to be. A "Resort Course" allowed an Instructor to take people diving after a pool introduction. The 'divers' were escorted in shallow water. The certification was not valid for regular diving situations that called for divers to be part of a diving team (buddy) and dive unsupervised.

Some of the skill-sets required in the OW program were broken-out into the AOW. The AOW as it was, ceased to exist and was broken into specialties. So the AOW became part-two of the OW program. In my mind, this left OW divers half-trained.

What was left was an OW program that for some reason has been blended with the Resort Course. This is of course, Agency dependent, but there is some confusion if the divers today are or are not capable of diving unsupervised with their buddy in a safe manner.

All of this occurred (IMO) as a means to piecemeal diving education in a manner to achieve the most profit possible. I know this from personal experience in discussions with PADI HQ when I owned a PADI Training Facility. It was the principle reason why I left PADI to teach principally for other organizations. I'm not blaming PADI here, but felt it beneficial to clarify matters.