SDI vs PADI

[Walter]

I don't like the way things are

Then why do you try so hard to keep things the way they are?

 

[JamMan]

Simple answer.

Which one is cheaper? Go with that one.

For more advanced instruction. That is when research will be necessary.
Once you actually get out and meet people and see what direction you want to head. Then you will see which way to go. They are pretty much interchangeable after OW. So dont worry about that.

 

[Walter]

Simple answer.

Which one is cheaper? Go with that one.

It's a simple answer. It's also a really, really bad answer.

 

[Kingpatzer]

Then why do you try so hard to keep things the way they are?

I don't work hard to keep things the way they are. I'm not employed within any aspect of the dive industry, I don't write training standards, I don't even write editorials for major dive publications.

What I'm arguing is that the standards as currently applied by the major recreational dive certification agencies are in fact good enough, or there is at least no objective evidence to suggest they are lacking.

What I bemoan is that we don't have better diver retention and long term participation. But that won't change without a change to the standards. However, the standards are not in place for the dive industry writ large, they are in place for the certification industry. And in that space they are good enough.

When a product or service is good enough and cheap, it will garner a larger market share than a product or service that is of a higher than necessary quality and more expensive.

The recreational dive certification customer is, as a population, not interested in developing diving skills in order to enjoy diving as a safe, lifetime hobby. They recreational dive certification customer is looking for the cheapest and fastest way to get themselves a diver card so they can flop around on a reef during their vacation and then brag to their friends back home how they are now a scuba diver.

And the standards work well enough to support that -- the accident rate is low enough that the public perception is the training and activity is good enough. The price difference between the typical agency and the higher end training is very significant, and the time to obtain certification is even more so.

I'm not arguing against change. I'm stating that it won't. The market forces preclude it. The only way the status quo changes to require a higher level of training for the average recreational diver is if the government gets involved. I'd rather see things stay as they are than have to deal with getting government issued diving licenses.

I'm also stating that it doesn't need to change from a standpoint of safety of the average recreational diver. They have enough skills to tool around on a crystal clear, warm, still reef and not drop dead of stupidity.

It does need to change in terms of long term LDS survival, local diving economic prosperity, local dive culture and participation, etc. But standards are not concerned with those things.

 

[Kingpatzer]

It's a simple answer. It's also a really, really bad answer.

No, it's not.

And that, sadly, is what really drives these discussions because serious divers wish it wasn't the reasonable response.

 

[simmonsjr]

I don't work hard to keep things the way they are. I'm not employed within any aspect of the dive industry, I don't write training standards, I don't even write editorials for major dive publications.

What I'm arguing is that the standards as currently applied by the major recreational dive certification agencies are in fact good enough, or there is at least no objective evidence to suggest they are lacking.

What I bemoan is that we don't have better diver retention and long term participation. But that won't change without a change to the standards. However, the standards are not in place for the dive industry writ large, they are in place for the certification industry. And in that space they are good enough.

When a product or service is good enough and cheap, it will garner a larger market share than a product or service that is of a higher than necessary quality and more expensive.

The recreational dive certification customer is, as a population, not interested in developing diving skills in order to enjoy diving as a safe, lifetime hobby. They recreational dive certification customer is looking for the cheapest and fastest way to get themselves a diver card so they can flop around on a reef during their vacation and then brag to their friends back home how they are now a scuba diver.

And the standards work well enough to support that -- the accident rate is low enough that the public perception is the training and activity is good enough. The price difference between the typical agency and the higher end training is very significant, and the time to obtain certification is even more so.

I'm not arguing against change. I'm stating that it won't. The market forces preclude it. The only way the status quo changes to require a higher level of training for the average recreational diver is if the government gets involved. I'd rather see things stay as they are than have to deal with getting government issued diving licenses.

I'm also stating that it doesn't need to change from a standpoint of safety of the average recreational diver. They have enough skills to tool around on a crystal clear, warm, still reef and not drop dead of stupidity.

It does need to change in terms of long term LDS survival, local diving economic prosperity, local dive culture and participation, etc. But standards are not concerned with those things.

The point that I believe that Kingpatzer is trying to make here is that given the choice most people are more apt to purchase something that is less expensive but will accomplish its purpose adequately over something that performs its intended purpose exceptionally well but is more expensive.

Consider this as an illustration: The average consumer walks into a furniture store to buy a new desk for his den. At the store there are only two available and both must be ordered in. Both desks are the same exact color and the same exact design; however one is mass produced with acceptable materials and workmanship while the other is handcrafted to exacting standards by master-craftsmen out of the best possible materials. Desk "A" is available for $199 and will take one week to be delivered. Desk "B" costs $1999 and will require a wait of three to four months to be available. Most consumers will choose the first option because they want it now and they don't really want to pay all that much for it. This desk fits their needs and so they buy it. However, a smaller portion of the consumer base knows that they will eventually get more value out of desk "B" and so they are willing to go to the extra initial expense in terms of both time and money because they realize that this purchase will ultimately save them an additional expense down the road. This desk fits their needs and so they buy it.

The same is true when potential divers go looking for a certification: for the majority of them the readily available standards of the big certification agencies are all that they need because that is what meets their needs; however, there is a smaller subset that appreciate the higher standards of the more specialized agencies and are willing to invest the extra time and money involved to be certified with them because they know that their investment will pay off down the road.

However, these smaller agencies will never take over the market from the bigger, more readily accessible agencies because for most consumers good enough and cheaper is what drives the purchase. Ultimately though no one is really wrong they make different choices because they are looking to accomplish something different with their training

Jason

 

[Walter]

so long as the public remains largely uneducated about the differences between agencies, it will always be the lowest cost, shortest time to certification agencies that win out in the market.

We are in agreement that this is the way things are. I'm trying to educate the public about those differences.

I don't work hard to keep things the way they are.

It seems to me you are. Almost every post you've made in this thread seems to be designed to cover up or dispute those differences between agencies.

Your first post (#11) was:

Nearly all US based agencies align their standards to ANSI Standard Z86.3 Minimum Course Content For Safe Scuba Diving as well as the standards created by the World Recreational Scuba Training Council -- which requires that all member organizations' standards include specific minimum skills. Both PADI and SDI are member organizations.

All this means that it is instructors and stores that matter, not agencies.

Your last post (#85) was:

No, it's not.

And that, sadly, is what really drives these discussions because serious divers wish it wasn't the reasonable response.

You've made 21 posts in this tread so far, 18 of them were partially or completely designed to keep the public uneducated about the differences between agencies. That looks like you're working pretty hard to keep things the way they are to me.

No, it's not.

And that, sadly, is what really drives these discussions because serious divers wish it wasn't the reasonable response.

It's not a reasonable response. It's a response with no thought or understanding of the dangers involved in diving or how training can reduce those dangers.

 

[BDSC]

Time for my 2 cent worth. (If that)

I'm pretty much your average recreational vacation diver although pretty much all my vacations are dive vacations. It's usually the nice clear warm waters of the Caribbean or some place like that. I may get in on average 60 to 70 dives a year.

When I was certified thru PADI (1991) I felt, and can now look back and realize, that I was taught all the skills necessary to make me a competent and safe recreational diver. I eventually got my AOW which added some basic navigation skills. Through the years I have become a much better diver of course by just diving and practicing the skills I have learned. But I don't know that I can look back and say that I think PADI should have taught this or that to have made me a better diver.

It seems to me that the basic OW course is just that. A basic course to teach you the skills necessary to dive. Could it be made into a better course? I have no doubt it could be. Would a few more hours of classroom and pool time be a benefit? Probably. Would maybe 6 or 8 checkout dives instead of 4 be better? Yep. And all of that may lead to a better comfort level of a new diver when just starting out.

But is any of that really necessary? I personally don't think so. If the basic standards of ______ (whatever agency you want to plug in) were not adequate to produce a reasonably safe diver, then it seems people would be dying left and right. Of course I realize some people just shouldn't be diving and perhaps no amount of training could compensate for that.

As far as the thought that a more rigorous initial training would produce divers that would stay in the sport longer, I'm not so sure the final numbers would work out that way.

 

[Kingpatzer]

You've made 21 posts in this tread so far, 18 of them were partially or completely designed to keep the public uneducated about the differences between agencies. That looks like you're working pretty hard to keep things the way they are to me.

I am not arguing there is no differences between agencies. I am arguing that the minimum standards of the most frequently encountered agencies do not differ that much, and that they are adequate to the purpose of the average recreational diver.

It's not a reasonable response. It's a response with no thought or understanding of the dangers involved in diving or how training can reduce those dangers.

I have stated I agree that training reduces risk and mitigates outcomes. However, there is no objective evidence that one agency does an inferior job of that over others with respect to the average recreational diver.

And until such evidence can be produced, there is no basis for claiming that one agency is inferior to another with respect to the average recreational diver.

And education is a great thing. Educate away. But when you start making claims without evidence you should be called on it.

I'd like to be able to say "Hey, look, based on dollars and risk here are the best choices of agencies ranked first to last in terms of how much risk you face for average dollars spent, and how much risk you face for average time spent in training both in terms of hours of training and calendar days of class time."

But we don't have that. We have a lot of speculation and recriminations by experienced divers who are far more than average recreational once-in-a-lifetime vacation divers -- who are frankly the market the largest certification agencies court.

 

[Kingpatzer]

Time for my 2 cent worth. (If that)

I'm pretty much your average recreational vacation diver although pretty much all my vacations are dive vacations. It's usually the nice clear warm waters of the Caribbean or some place like that. I may get in on average 60 to 70 dives a year.

The average recreational diver makes around 6x fewer dives in their lifetime than you make in a year.

As far as the thought that a more rigorous initial training would produce divers that would stay in the sport longer, I'm not so sure the final numbers would work out that way.

I think they would. You would have fewer initial people coming into the sport -- but not that many. To really flesh out PADI's course you'd have to add maybe eight hours of combined pool and OW time, and maybe an hour more of class time. THat would be 2 more days of training.

But you'd have people who would be more prepared to actually enjoy their first few dives, and thus get more out of hte experience. Being more comfortable and confident in the water, they'd have a chance to pay more attention to the most enjoyable aspects of the dive rather than fussing with gear and fretting about this or that.

I've seen plenty of folks leave the docks and never enjoy the boat ride, they spent the whole time fretting with the DM over every little detail. They never experienced the surface side social aspect of what was going on. In the water they tended to spend all their time trying to simply do the right thing rather than see the sights.

But see those same people 5o ro 6 dives later and they're fine -- they've worked out the kinks and are finally able to relax a bit.

But if they started out relaxed, they'd ahve a better over-all experience. That would, I strongly suspect, lead them to see about local diving, or to explore future dive vacations at least.

The average diver makes around 10 non-training dives in a lifetime. I can easily believe that is because they remember the difficulties during the trip as easily as they remember the stuff they enjoyed. The less difficulties they have, the more likely the positives compel them to dive in the future.