Tec, Where to begin??

[Doc Harry]

^^^
Contrast that to PADI instructors who kept telling to put on my snorkel, even after I told them over and over that wearing a snorkel was not consistent with my Hogarthian configuration.

"PADI requires a snorkel," they kept saying.

I suspect PADI's rigidty is driven by their legal team.

 

[PfcAJ]

You mean their weird standards are not enforced equally across the board because of low central control and oversight? No way?!

 

[DevonDiver]

^^^
Contrast that to PADI instructors who kept telling to put on my snorkel, even after I told them over and over that wearing a snorkel was not consistent with my Hogarthian configuration.

"PADI requires a snorkel," they kept saying.

I suspect PADI's rigidty is driven by their legal team.

I've already quoted the PADI recommendations on snorkels and tech. I assume you're an intelligent man, and have bothered to read replies where people have been courteous enough to respond to you. Therefore, am I to assume that you're just being deliberately obtuse?

As I've ascertained, the quality of technical instruction is entirely dependent on the the instructor. You picked a moron to learn tech from. That's all.

Again, I suspect a certain level of willfully obtuse behavior, but I'll ask anyway.... do you honestly feel that your one encounter with a PADI technical instructor... for "only" an intro-to-tech course, leaves you sufficiently enlightened to pass judgement on the entire PADI tech community?

What sort of person take a sample size of one... then extrapolates to form a universal rule? Not someone I'd listen to...

---------- Post added August 14th, 2013 at 06:37 PM ----------

You mean their weird standards are not enforced equally across the board because of low central control and oversight? No way?!

Care to state one 'weird standard' and explain how that differs from any of the other primary tech agencies?

 

[DCBC]

...As I've ascertained, the quality of technical instruction is entirely dependent on the the instructor.

From what I can gather Andy, PADI tech is run much like the other agencies run recreational and technical training. The instructor has minimum requirements and has a free hand to add what they feel is reasonable. Am I mistaken on this? If not, why do PADI restrict their Recreational Instructors to such a degree? In other words, why is it not recreational training consistent with the technical way of instruction?

 

[mdax]

If I was in your shoes I'd get a used back plate and wing, no other gear and take GUE fundamentals. I don't know of any bad fundies instructors, some may have differing personalities that mesh better with others...however every single one is great in the water and adheres to strict standards.

Once you have been exposed to a higher level of instruction you will be better informed about how to judge future instructors. There are great tdi, iantd, nss, nacd, cmas...even padi instructors, but sometimes separating the wheat from the chaff is hard, especially when you're new.

 

[DevonDiver]

I've never felt limited with PADI tech. My only bug bear is the redundant buoyancy issue - but that's hardly uncommon amongst agencies.

I felt quite limited teaching recreational courses - but mostly the rigid standards occur at OW level, IMHO. I've run AOW, Deep and Wreck courses to my satisfaction for years. The only drawback on deep and wreck is the amount of 'wasted' dives. Yes, I fill them with good buoyancy, team and situational awareness development - but they could be so much more (by standard).

I don't like any tech agency that sets a too low bar on instructor entry. PADI aren't the only ones guilty of that. It tends to 'cheapen the brand', the perceptions of such are evident in this thread. The biggest problem, IMHO is the process of using Course Directors to certify technical instructors. Many aren't technical diving specialists (by experience, or passion). That's a problem for any agency that mixes recreational and technical diving. PADI should soon be allowing direct upgrade to Tech I.T. without CD requirement (they already did this for cross-overs, but not internally). I think that'd be a good step forwards (potentially, if not abused).

Instructor-Trainers are the key to maintaining good technical instructor quality. PADI has a deficit of experience at that level, IMHO. Thus, people qualify to teach who shouldn't... it becomes the stereotypical 'tick the box' exercise for training... and less about a true expert ascertaining expertise in their trainees.

 

[DCBC]

I've never felt limited with PADI tech. My only bug bear is the redundant buoyancy issue - but that's hardly uncommon amongst agencies.

I felt quite limited teaching recreational courses - but mostly the rigid standards occur at OW level, IMHO. I've run AOW, Deep and Wreck courses to my satisfaction for years. The only drawback on deep and wreck is the amount of 'wasted' dives. Yes, I fill them with good buoyancy, team and situational awareness development - but they could be so much more (by standard).

I don't like any tech agency that sets a too low bar on instructor entry. PADI aren't the only ones guilty of that. It tends to 'cheapen the brand', the perceptions of such are evident in this thread. The biggest problem, IMHO is the process of using Course Directors to certify technical instructors. Many aren't technical diving specialists (by experience, or passion). That's a problem for any agency that mixes recreational and technical diving. PADI should soon be allowing direct upgrade to Tech I.T. without CD requirement (they already did this for cross-overs, but not internally). I think that'd be a good step forwards (potentially, if not abused).

Instructor-Trainers are the key to maintaining good technical instructor quality. PADI has a deficit of experience at that level, IMHO. Thus, people qualify to teach who shouldn't... it becomes the stereotypical 'tick the box' exercise for training... and less about a true expert ascertaining expertise in their trainees.

I agree. Although I'm an ITE, CMAS required me to complete the Cave Instructor III, Wreck Instructor II, Advanced Trimix Instructor and CCR Instructor programs (which all have prerequisites) before I could certify Instructors at those levels. They have pretty strict requirements and you have to jump through the hoops if you want the cards.

I think CMAS got it right, but I can see if an Agency is looking at the money that can be made in technical diving that some of them might hurry through incapable Instructors. If you start with poor ingredients, it's hard to create a masterpiece.

 

[Peter Guy]

DCBC wrote

In other words, why is it not recreational training consistent with the technical way of instruction?

DCBC, from what I can gather, the biggest difference between PADI's charge to the recreational instructor corps and the technical instructor corps is that a recreational instructor MUST certify a student if the student has "mastered" all of the defined skills. (Note, it is the instructor who decides if a skill has been "mastered" and I've always been of the opinion that IF all the skills have been mastered, why wouldn't I certify the student?)

OTOH, a PADI technical instructor is specifically given the freedom to deny a cert if the instructor believes the student doesn't have the right mindset, even if the physical skills are all "mastered."

I wrote about my experience of becoming a PADI tech instructor and while I'm not at all sure it was the best evaluation (not instruction, it was a 4 day (?) evaluation) my instructor trainer certainly did have the experience to do the training/evaluation. My data set is just one so who knows how valid. I've seen other local PADI tech instructors and, at least to my eye, they run the gamut -- just as instructors from other agencies (3 and 4 letter) do.

 

[DCBC]

DCBC wrote

DCBC, from what I can gather, the biggest difference between PADI's charge to the recreational instructor corps and the technical instructor corps is that a recreational instructor MUST certify a student if the student has "mastered" all of the defined skills. (Note, it is the instructor who decides if a skill has been "mastered" and I've always been of the opinion that IF all the skills have been mastered, why wouldn't I certify the student?)

OTOH, a PADI technical instructor is specifically given the freedom to deny a cert if the instructor believes the student doesn't have the right mindset, even if the physical skills are all "mastered."

I wrote about my experience of becoming a PADI tech instructor and while I'm not at all sure it was the best evaluation (not instruction, it was a 4 day (?) evaluation) my instructor trainer certainly did have the experience to do the training/evaluation. My data set is just one so who knows how valid. I've seen other local PADI tech instructors and, at least to my eye, they run the gamut -- just as instructors from other agencies (3 and 4 letter) do.

Peter, if it's required to certify recreational divers when the instructor believes the student doesn't have the right mindset to dive to a maximum depth of 130 FSW, why should it be different for some Tec-Rec divers who dive to a maximum of 165 FSW? Why shouldn't they both have the right mindset?

What stages are there for Instructors? Does PADI have separate Instructor ratings for 40/45/50/65? or can a Tec Rec Instructor teach all programs? I know CCR is separate.

 

[Scott]

What stages are there for Instructors? Does PADI have separate Instructor ratings for 40/45/50/65? or can a Tec Rec Instructor teach all programs? I know CCR is separate.

Tec Instructor can teach Tec 40
Tec Deep Instructor can teach Tec 40, 45 and 50
Tec Trimix Instructor can teach Tec 65, Tec Trimix as well as Tec 40, 45 and 50