Should Nitrox Certification require dives....

[TCDiver1]

Take the PADI course for example that involves a dive - its not an assessed dive, its simply a dive. You dont pass or fail based on that. Therefore its a utterly pointless requirement.

Not true. I assess and evaluate dive skills for every student, in every class and remediate if necessary. Enriched air is no different.

You've passed your academics, now we're going to sit on the bottom of the pool and breathe EAN32 to see if ya remember how to breathe !!!! And we're gonna do it not once, but TWICE !!! That'll be $50 please . . .

LOL ... who's talking about sitting on the bottom of a pool? Thanks for making my point for me Kraken.

So whats it gonna be? Am i suppose to just accept mediocrity and sign off on a bottom dweller or actually find out if they are one and do something about it?

You guys crack me up.

 

[jonnythan]

So whats it gonna be? Am i suppose to just accept mediocrity and sign off on a bottom dweller or actually find out if they are one and do something about it?

You guys crack me up.

Does it matter?

You're not giving them an open water card. You're giving them a card that says you trained them on how to properly use Nitrox, not how to dive.

Charter boats don't let you dive with just a Nitrox card. They require OW cards. For a reason.

Maybe it grates on your conscience letting a diver with poor skills continue diving, but that has nothing to do with a Nitrox card. It has to do with your humanity.

 

[MHK]

I still disagree with your take on this. IF the student doesnt make the entry requirements for the course which in the case of nitrox is OW equivalent meaning they are supposedly competent you dont accept them on the course. Once you've accepted them on the course you are accepting theyve met the minimum standards.
Going from that as a basic nitrox courses teaches nothing at all different to do with diving, equipment or methodology its utterly pointless demanding dives for the sake of dives.
Take the PADI course for example that involves a dive - its not an assessed dive, its simply a dive. You dont pass or fail based on that. Therefore its a utterly pointless requirement.

It's an utterly pointless requirement because the class is a joke.. That's point you are missing. If you apply such a low standard to class and then take a position that as a result of such a minimum expectation, such and such is pointless, then I agree. However, I look at this from a different vantage point. I don't accept that as a result of some prior certification that this student can satisfy my expectations. In my view, it is up to the student to prove to me that he/she has the skills necessary to earn a c-card with my name on it. In other words, the burden of proof is on the student, not the other way around. I could care less what some Tom, Dick or Harry signed off on in Cayman however many moons ago. If you come to me to take a class then the burden is on you to demonstrate to me that you can pass the class. And in my view, that means you have situational awareness, you have bouyancy skill and so on.. I want to test to verify that you can keep you bouyancy if your mask is lost, I want to test to see that you don't loose your bouyancy if you need to do an air share, I want to see that you have the skill to rescue a toxing diver and so forth. I guess the real question in my mind is this notion that the student is somehow or another in charge of determining what I should or should not use in order to evaluate him/her.. Many of the skills in OW are evaluated on a subjective basis and what constitutes mastery to one instructor, is a disaster to another and I'm not willing to substitute my observations for some instructor that I've never met. It all comes down to whether or not you have confidence in the value of the c-card, and I think increasingly what you are learning is that many of us at the instructor level have little, if any, faith in the purported skill that a c-card represents..

All too many students went through an OW class wherein the instructor put several extra pounds on the student, then planted that student on his/her knees while they did a mask R & R and then signed them off. To me that isn't representative of "mastering" a skill. However, if the industry is hell bent on allowing that type of training to pass as "mastery", then they shouldn't be surprised when many of us are unwilling to allow for the presumption of skill when that particular c-card is presented as evidence. It's a self-inflicted wound based on a systemic debasing of the value of skills.

As I noted earlier, the good thing about the dive industry is that you have options available and if all you're looking for is a c-card that option is available. Whereas those that want the training that a c-card is supposed to represent also have that option available. But for the life of me I can't imagine an instructor worth his salt that would allow for the student to dictate the terms by which he/she should issue a c-card.. Many agencies have proven that they are willing to bend to peer pressure or economic incentives, the instructors should hold the line..

Regards,

 

[jonnythan]

If rescuing a toxing diver were actually part of the cirriculum, Mike, I'd agree with you.

However, they are not.. and I don't expect them to be any time soon. The dives currently required for a Nitrox cert are silly.

 

[TCDiver1]

Does it matter?

Yes, it does to me.

Charter boats don't let you dive with just a Nitrox card. They require OW cards. For a reason.

Sure they do. I do it all the time.

Maybe it grates on your conscience letting a diver with poor skills continue diving, but that has nothing to do with a Nitrox card. It has to do with your humanity.

I agree and this is something i do not consider a bad thing

If and when you become an instructor you can make you own decision on that too. String has chosen the no dive option i would never choose. To each his own.

 

[String]

It's an utterly pointless requirement because the class is a joke.. That's point you are missing.

I havent missed that point at all. If you bothered to read above i actually said in my initial response to you that the topic of if the class was good enough was for another thread and another discussion entirely.

Its up to the student to demonstrate they can meet the syllabus standards for the course in question. In the basic nitrox courses out there at the moment they can quite happily meet this without dives.

I could care less what some Tom, Dick or Harry signed off on in Cayman however many moons ago.

Again thats agency standards. Its frowned upon by instructors of an agency to ridicule and ignore the certifications of others in the same agency. You are meant to trust the system.

Given the requirements of basic nitrox that are 100% theoretical and involve not one single even small change of diving practice skills or methods the need for a dive just isnt there.
Some grades and agencies require proof of previous skills to achieve the next grade- fair enough then you have dives (even though i think for something as simple as basic nitrox its not needed). This isnt the case with most around at the moment though, ive not seen one that says anything on the line of must proof all the skills required for previous grades.

Some of this could be stupid.

"you've bought a new computer so pay me $75 for a dive using it before i'll let you use it on your own"
or
"You've bought a new set of regs, im not letting you use those without some dives with me so pay me more money".

Again, no chance to the dive procedures,methods or skills so dives arent needed. Nitrox basic is the same.


If any course or qualification introduces new practical techniques, changes to existing diving techniques or skills then yes dives would be needed. If nothing has changed there is nothing to be gained by doing it.

 

[MHK]

If rescuing a toxing diver were actually part of the cirriculum, Mike, I'd agree with you.

However, they are not.. and I don't expect them to be any time soon. The dives currently required for a Nitrox cert are silly.

That's the ENTIRE point.. IF you are diving an 02 elevated mix, oxygen toxicity is a source of concern so why isn't it part of the class?? If your buddy toxes underwater, are you not going to help him because "it wasn't part of the certification class"?? It's even more a matter of concern to the extent that anyone follows the recomendations of some divers in this thread. Take for example a student that took an OW class in 1960 and hadn't dove since. That card is still valid, and if we accept the current standards and/or recommendations from this thread, we as instructors should accept that this diver has the requisite bouyancy control and just hand him a c-card with my name on it, because he proved he can do a few math problems.. Does that make sense to you??

Also, take for example a OW diver that just finished his OW class yesterday in Cayman. Should we issue him a Nitrox card to dive in the colder waters of the north east, or the colder kelp beds in California and accept as a matter of principle that this diver has bouyancy control?

The overall larger picture that many seem to be missing is that we as instructors have seen all too many times students that take an AOW class, or a DIR-F class, that have that very c-card that you guys keep asking us to rely upon, and all too many divers have little, if any, skill so it would be extremely imprudent for anyone to rely on that OW card. While I recognize that some agencies, and other divers, disagree on that point and it is certainly their perogative to do so, I believe that it's a mistake to loose the opportunity to get in front of an instructor, providing of course, that the instructor actually make the dives meaningful. I divorce myself from the idea as certain agencies perpetuate, which is to simply do an escort dive. I agree, that's a waste..

But as I've said, divers have options and if they choose to go online then that is their right. What I can't figure out for the life of me is the shops that remain loyal to agencies that advance this teaching methodology. Certain agencies have proven, if nothing else, that they are very futuristic in their thinking and their marketing schemes. Here, it's pretty obvious to see, that the agencies are laying the groundwork to cut out the middleman, and go directly to the student eventually. Currently, there is a very symbiotic relationship between the agency and the shop. The shop needs the agency to get students to sell gear to, the agency needs the shops to teach so they can sell c-cards. It's a win-win so they need each other. However, ideas like remote learning and e-learning are clearly laying the groundwork for an imbalance of power and I'm confident in saying that the agencies are better prepared for this eventual shift, in fact, I think the agency will be the cause of the shift whereas I suspect the shops haven't even yet recognized this possibility nor are they united enough or coordinated enough to stop this eventuality.

Oh well..

Regards,

 

[jonnythan]

Mike, you're so ambitious

As it is, the Nitrox classes with dives are a waste of time IMO. If and when rescue techniques get added to the cirriculum, I will be the strongest proponent of requiring dives.

Requiring fun dives as part of a Nitrox class, as it currently is, is stupid. Either add actual in-water skills and do the dives, or leave the dives off.

 

[latitude]

My point is, one would have no idea unless one dove with or was familiar with that diver.

The percentage of O2 isn't the only issue at play here even if it is only EAN22. Unless i've recently certified or dove with the student, i have no idea if the diver is safe on air. Remediation of basic skills is often needed in follow on classes to OW. And i do view that as my responsibility even if the class is Nitrox.

Sure, i could assume because the person was certified at one time, that it isn't my problem, just do academics and crank out students but generally speaking i'm just not comfortable with that.

.........

I'm just wondering... Have you ever run into a student in a NITROX course (or other advanced course for that matter) that you've denied a card because of basic skills? You may have and it'd be interesting to hear the story...

I'm not an instructor, so I don't have the literature, but what are the standards (for your agency) for the NITROX dives (I assume there's something similiar to the OW dives - ie. "student must demonstrate a fin-pivot using the low pressure inflator"). I realize you're going to say that "as an instructor I'm allowed to hold my students to a higher standard than the agency says", but what's that student going to do if they pay their money, receive the training, and meet the standards (pass the NITROX written, and whatever standards there are for the dives) and then you turn around and don't give them the card because of your self-imposed higher standards... Do they have to do more dives? What's the cost for this "additional training" to the student? My point is that the agencies dictate the standards and you're getting into a grey area when you add your own. Heck, for all I know, there's a catch all in the standards that allows the instructor to flunk a student for whatever reason... Is there?

Don't get me wrong... I think any opportunity to dive with an Instructor (or any more experienced diver for that matter) is always good. As a matter of fact, that was a major factor is me taking the NITROX course (2 extra dives with an instructor to see if I had picked up any bad habits since AOW), but I can honestly say that I learned nothing about NITROX from doing those two dives that I hadn't learned from the book and the classroom. I honestly don't need the NITROX for 90% of my dives, but believe in continuing education.

Not trying to fan the flames on this thread, just a couple of thoughts I had while reading...

 

[MHK]

Mike, you're so ambitious

As it is, the Nitrox classes with dives are a waste of time IMO. If and when rescue techniques get added to the cirriculum, I will be the strongest proponent of requiring dives.

Requiring fun dives as part of a Nitrox class, as it currently is, is stupid. Either add actual in-water skills and do the dives, or leave the dives off.

The problem is that the "system" is broken at the lowest level. Most know it, but few admit it, especially at the corporate level. If the head of the agency were to follow my recommendations in this thread he would either need to tacitly, or overtly, admit that reliance on an OW card as a matter of proof is tantamount to an acknowledgement that the card isn't valuable. You guys know that this will never happen, so why continue compounding a problem by ignoring the obvious, and relying on that which we know is wrong?

Said another way, if we know that all too many divers passed an OW class absent the requisite skill then why not take any opportunity you can to teach them at subsequent levels?

The cost of expansion for the agencies has come at a price. Slowly, over the years, the agencies have systemically lowered the bar to be more inclusive, such to the point that the value of the c-card is virtually worthless in terms of being representative of skill level. That is a given, so to continue this trend is absurd and avoids the problem.. The inherint flaw in the "system" is that subsequent training is predicated on prior training, but current training is debased based upon the hope of selling future training.. Did you follow that ;-)

It's great for the agencies, but it isn't so great for the students..

Regards,