Serious question about PADI

[oceancrest67]

I started off and have been diving through the PADI certifications for the past ten years. Certainly PADI is in the market place to stake its claim and to cast a wide net.

I also posted another thread entitled: Choice, Challenges and Ego. I think some of the discussion on my thread relates to some of the ideas here. For me, PADI was and still is a good starting point, constructive and quite thorough for 'recreational' diving and technique. I also have to agree with those divers in the more 'technical' crowd, regarding a better, more thorough diving equipment set up and practice...a more seriously oriented philosophy.

I do agree that...like anything else branded in the ever changing market place...the scuba industry has grown from its infancy. It was inevitable from the start. It has become less exclusive and more for the tourist. More and more divers are in the water, more tourism, more glossy magazines, less remoteness, more cert. cards, more this and that...more gear...and on and on it goes.

Someone pointed out that it has become like the golfing or skiing industry...how about the climbing industry? People now pay climbing schools just to make the expensive trek up Everest...and the risk? The impact on the environment is growing with more people seeking the skill and knowledge to ride out on cattle boats for some reef trashing.

I think there is a positive though...with a broader market, with a broader net...the diving industry can help in teaching to protect the environment, to learn about the oceans etc. At least this is the ideal.

Some here argue that it is the instructor and not the certification agency that sets the initial impression...from there it is up to each individual diver to seek growth and development. You can be the diver you want to be...as long as you follow the fundamentals.

In my thread, I made some critical observations about the mad rush for certification...divers without any real skill development...believe me, I have seen my fair share of mediocre recreational divers...mediocre instructors...out of shape divers...psychotic buddies...gear hounds and everything in between.

 

[Lawman]

Look, when you've been around SB for a while you'll detect that there are two basic groups. The first group [we'll call them the Recs] like PADI and see scuba as a fun and exciting recreational hobby. Their entire lives don't revolve around scuba and they don't do difficult dives if they can avoid it.
The second group [we'll call them the Marines] see scuba divers as a select few technocrats who are highly trained, highly conditioned, and ready to accomplish whatever mission they have assigned. The DIR bunch is their SS.
They see scuba as education by ordeal leading to entrance into a select group. Mike is a good example. They believe in train, train, train. Fun is secondary to training.
They don't like PADI because it stresses having fun scuba diving, rather than making it hard, exacting work.

 

[Scubakevdm]

Look, when you've been around SB for a while you'll detect that there are two basic groups. The first group [we'll call them the Recs] like PADI and see scuba as a fun and exciting recreational hobby. Their entire lives don't revolve around scuba and they don't do difficult dives if they can avoid it.
The second group [we'll call them the Marines] see scuba divers as a select few technocrats who are highly trained, highly conditioned, and ready to accomplish whatever mission they have assigned. The DIR bunch is their SS.
They see scuba as education by ordeal leading to entrance into a select group. Mike is a good example. They believe in train, train, train. Fun is secondary to training.
They don't like PADI because it stresses having fun scuba diving, rather than making it hard, exacting work.

Nicely said.

 

[DandyDon]

Look, when you've been around SB for a while you'll detect that there are two basic groups. The first group [we'll call them the Recs] like PADI and see scuba as a fun and exciting recreational hobby. Their entire lives don't revolve around scuba and they don't do difficult dives if they can avoid it.
The second group [we'll call them the Marines] see scuba divers as a select few technocrats who are highly trained, highly conditioned, and ready to accomplish whatever mission they have assigned. The DIR bunch is their SS.
They see scuba as education by ordeal leading to entrance into a select group. Mike is a good example. They believe in train, train, train. Fun is secondary to training.
They don't like PADI because it stresses having fun scuba diving, rather than making it hard, exacting work.

:lol: You're kidding, right? Maybe you should just try to speak for yourself...?

 

[MikeFerrara]

The second group [we'll call them the Marines] see scuba divers as a select few technocrats who are highly trained, highly conditioned, and ready to accomplish whatever mission they have assigned. The DIR bunch is their SS.
They see scuba as education by ordeal leading to entrance into a select group. Mike is a good example. They believe in train, train, train. Fun is secondary to training.
They don't like PADI because it stresses having fun scuba diving, rather than making it hard, exacting work.

If I'm the Mike you're refering to you have either greatly misunderstood everything that I've ever written on this site or your statement is an intentional lie.

I believe that fun is the reason that most people, including me dive. I have just found over the years that divers have more fun when they aren't strugling and that more thorough training makes it much easier and that much more fun. The training need not be much longer and certainly no harder in order to be better and more fun.

It's also a flat out lie that I don't like PADI because the stress the fun in diving. I dislike PADI because I believe that they condone practices that are dangerous...see the example that I gave above. I tie my opinions to specifics in the standards that I believe are problems concerning skills that they claim to teach but yet don't actually require any one to learn.

 

[Mako Mark]

Some agencies exceed those minimums, others don't. There's a big difference in standards from one agency to another.

I agree with Don, YMCA and NAUI trained divers tend to be more skilled.

This is because of the fish filleting section in the NAUI IT manual....Right?

 

[Don Burke]

...and this is what one of the anti-DIR fanatics looks like. Note the use of trigger terms like SS and ordeal. Most of them manufacture whatever drivel they think they need to fool the unsuspecting reader into thinking they have a point. This writer is no different.

Look, when you've been around SB for a while you'll detect that there are two basic groups. The first group [we'll call them the Recs] like PADI and see scuba as a fun and exciting recreational hobby. Their entire lives don't revolve around scuba and they don't do difficult dives if they can avoid it.
The second group [we'll call them the Marines] see scuba divers as a select few technocrats who are highly trained, highly conditioned, and ready to accomplish whatever mission they have assigned. The DIR bunch is their SS.
They see scuba as education by ordeal leading to entrance into a select group. Mike is a good example. They believe in train, train, train. Fun is secondary to training.
They don't like PADI because it stresses having fun scuba diving, rather than making it hard, exacting work.

 

[jbd]

I believe that fun is the reason that most people, including me dive. I have just found over the years that divers have more fun when they aren't strugling and that more thorough training makes it much easier and that much more fun. The training need not be much longer and certainly no harder in order to be better and more fun.

This is pretty much the same point that CurtBowen is making. I agree wholeheartedly. The less one has to struggle with their diving the more fun they will have. Its no harder to teach new divers to be horizontal than its is to teach them to be vertical and then expect them to correct their trim on their own later. Same with proper weighting and finning techniques that improve air consumption.

 

[Winton]

Doug,
I heard a bit of PADI bashing when I was still a "C" diver, an Instructor friend reffered to the acronym as "Put Another Dollar In".

If, you think about it they are sturctured a bit more like Amway or a Ponzi scheme (actually if you really think about it so is SSI, but PADI was first) than any of the other certificating agencies.

I think it is more usual for a dive professional to "bash" the agencies than the average diver. PADI does ask alot of its instructors, that I think has made them a good cert. to have, and like they stated earlier in this thread most of the material is standard in whatever agency you are using for training (SSI does require a bit more theory in the beginning, I believe), especially at the beginning.

Being good at diving is one part training and three parts experience. I know several really good divers that are very happy without any more training than there OW cert. (independent learner types), but for me I liked being able to expand my knowledge base through training, and continue to do so whenever the opportunity presents itself. I admit it most of my cards are PADI, only my Dive Con is through SSI.

Quick addition to the post: I am not so sure about YMCA being a cert. that provides more skills... I have seen a few YMCA divers that just were not up to speed, I think it had to do with class size, and going through the class like cattle, this may have changed, I did my PADI cert. that same way in 1976.

 

[AtomicWalrus]

You're picking some pretty questionable examples as a critique. Buddy breathing has been dropped because it's simply not a good way to share air. Too easy to hold your breath, too easy for a panicked diver to start fighting over a regulator, too easy to drop the reg passing it back & forth. You can drill everyone like crazy to master this skill, but it's still risky and is a poor substitute for just having an alternate 2nd stage.

And what's wrong with lumping several types of barotrauma together into "lung overexpansion injury"? Any competent instructor is going to communicate the point that this is a bad thing. The specific differences between the different types of injury are hardly relevant to a recreational diver in terms of treating them. It's a good area to expand your knowledge as a diver, but realistically unless you're a medical professional, it isn't going to affect your treatment approach.

Now that I'll have veins in your forehead throbbing, let me say that I agree with a lot of the DIR approach. My job as an engineer deals with design verification & reliability - you could say that I'm professionally paranoid. I believe in training constantly, always looking to do things better, and in creating a solid safety margin. However, the flip side is simplification - what value are you adding in terms of some of these skills or knowledge?

OK, so you've heard the "It's the instructor, not the agency" cant - that's partially true. All major agencies have their good and bad instructors.
You've seen the RSTC party line that all agencies are the same - that's patently false. At a given price point, you can find courses from any agency, so clearly, competition is based on other differences.

PADI started out as a non-profit organization, like all the other agencies. About 20 years ago, the board formed a corporation and bought the agency, and now, PADI is a for profit corporation like GM or Microsoft. All the other agencies are non-profits like the Red Cross, which offers CPR and aquatics training for a fee.

When PADI became for profit, they applied all the market research tools other companies use, and they found that the only way for the percentage of the population that dives to increase significantly is to make it quicker and easier to get into diving. They found that consumers want immediate gratification with little or no effort.
In other words, if you could get a certification card from a vending machine, almost everyone would dive, and if you had to go through Navy SEAL training to dive, very few people would do so.

In response to this information, they shortened the course, removed content, and also removed information that might intimidate potential divers. People will rant and argue about this, but it is objective fact that you can now get OW certified in one weekend, when it once took months, that clearly identifiable skills like buddy breathing were once required and now are not, and that several dangerous types of barotrauma are euphemistically lumped into the less threatening sounding phrase "lung overexpansion injury." As a result of these changes, the number of divers grew dramatically. Dive related businesses flourished, and, of course, PADI raked in a whole lotta dough. All good, right?

Well, a lot of divers don't think so. Many people feel that traiing should continue to be as rigorous and thorough as it once was. They feel that the role of training and certification is as a barrier to entry, assuring competent, capable divers. This is similar to the thinking behind making med school so tough - it makes better doctors. They realize that it might mean fewer divers, but they are OK with that. Obviously, this group does not include many people whose livelihood is tied to growth of the diving industry.

People argue about whether the changes have caused more accidents, and there is evidence for both sides of that argument. One thing that has changed is that most recreational diving is now done under professional supervision. 20 years ago, all diving operations did was give you a boat ride to the dive site. Now, DM's guide and watch over divers the entire time. Some people resent this. There are large dive operations today that do not let customers assemble their own gear. A lot of operations also require divers to demonstrate some skills before they dive. All these measures, in effect, say that the operators don't place much trust in certifications as evidence that divers know what they're doing.

In fairness to PADI, it must be noted that the other agencies, in order to compete, have floowed PADI down this road to varying degrees. However, there is one glaring difference. PADI does not allow an instructor to REQUIRE more of a student than the PADI standards dictate. There is some wiggle room in this in that the standards require "mastery" of certain skills without defining mastery very well, but, PADI specifically prohibits the requirement of "stressing" drills, which are exercises designed to task load the student or place them under stress while performing skills. Other agencies do allow this - for insatnce, NAUI has the "loved one" test - the instructor is not required to certify anyone he/she wouldn't want a loved one to buddy with. Now, obviously, this could be abused, but I've never heard of it happening.

A good comparison is the way driver's licenses are issued in the USA and Germany. In the USA, drivers licenses are almost as easy to obtain as the prize in a Cracker Jack box, and we have oppressive speed limits. In Germany, they have a test that many American police officers couldn't pass, but then trust people who hold licenses to determine a safe speed on their own. Diving once was like the German system, but is now more like the American system, and PADI is largely responsible for that change. Some people think it's for the better, some don't. You've probably surmised by now that I fall into the latter group, even though I'm a PADI member. You'd be surprised how many people who are PADI professionals resent the way PADI has gone. Jokes that PADI stands for "Put Another Dollar In" or "Pay Alot, Dive Immediately" originated with PADI instructors.

At a PADI member Update presentation a few years ago, we were told "We're not selling education; we're selling entertainment!" Decide for yourself if that's a good thing.



DIR (Doing It Right) is the strongest segment of the backlash against the trend outlined above. It is a movement that says divers should be thoroughly trained, should select equipment based purely on objective considerations, rather than personal preference or fashion, and that diving is a potentially dangerous activity to be taken seriously, not to be compared with, say, golf. The principles of DIR were worked out primarily by a group of cave divers in Florida called the WKPP, who are doing very extreme diving, based on analysis of past accidents and practices. It is an evolving system, but the central idea is that all practices must be based on objective principles, not emotional whim or aesthetics. The most well known aspect of DIR is the equipment configuration, and many people will say they are DIR simply because they have that configuration, but they are not. Among other things, DIR says that divers should be VERY physically fit, so some obese slob can't become DIR simply by strapping on the rig, as is an all too common practice and claim. Proponents of DIR tend to be VERY dogmatic, and this puts off a lot of people. There is an agency, GUE, that is rather small, that teaches strictly by DIR principles.

People here and elsewhere have very strong opinions on both these issues. Keep in mind, that most people enter diving through a single weekend PADI course, and thus start out thinking that's the cat's meow. As people advance in diving, they learn more, and those who adopt the DIR point of view do so gradually. As Frank Herbert said, there is no one as zealous as a convert, and this accounts for a lot of the strong rhetoric from the DIR people. Asking someone who recently adopted DIR principles about PADI is like asking an ex-smoker about smoking - you won't get a timid answer.

Do some more investigation. GUE puts on DIR demos at dive sites around the country. Look, listen, learn, investigate, and dive, and evaluate the issues yourself.