Tech through PADI or TDI?

[boulderjohn]

Some instructors may do that, and there may be pressure by instructors' employers, but it's my understanding that at least PADI requires a student perform each skill more than once--"master" it. As I see it, the most significant difference between the two camps is quality control over what instructors teach and require.

Saying that PADI requires a skill only to be done once is a familiar falsehood promoted by those who wish to attack it. A skill must be mastered, and an instructor must be convinced that the student can continue to perform that skill fluidly in the future before passing it. Even so, the key skills in the tech program must be repeated. For example, the valve shut down drill must be done many times in the PADI tech program, with a strict time limit, including during simulated decompression stops, with the student not permitted to change depth more than 2 feet while doing that drill.

 

[tbone1004]

@boulderjohn I think it seems to be emphasized by some instructors definitions of "mastery" I've seen some very interesting definitions of "mastery" observing checkout dives... This is at the recreational level, not tech level

 

[Lobzilla]

Saying that PADI requires a skill only to be done once is a familiar falsehood promoted by those who wish to attack it. A skill must be mastered, and an instructor must be convinced that the student can continue to perform that skill fluidly in the future before passing it. Even so, the key skills in the tech program must be repeated. For example, the valve shut down drill must be done many times in the PADI tech program, with a strict time limit, including during simulated decompression stops, with the student not permitted to change depth more than 2 feet while doing that drill.

John,

As tbone1004 surmised, I made that comment with regards to recreational training.

But please tell me whether in your opinion a class, any class, just meeting PADI standards offers as much value for a student as an equivalent class taught to GUE standards. In my opinion, this is not even a contest, we are talking two different universes here.

As I said before, there are many instructors who provide excellent, rigorous instructions under the big labels but they do this because of their conviction and not because their agency would not allow anything less. The question above refers to what the agency promotes.

We both know that the big agencies literally push you into becoming an instructor; that's how they got big. They also got big by issuing as many certifications as ethically/legally tolerable.

Do you know how GUE looks at a class where 100% of the students failed? They read the reports that the students submit at the end of the class to GUE (not to the instructor) and determine whether the instructor(s) did everything s/he should have done - plus the extra mile. If that analysis is inconclusive, you will get an email from the director of quality control asking for your specific take. If there is any hint that the instructor fell short of his/her demanding standards, s/he will have to up his/her game or leave. Otherwise, the conclusion is that none of the students met the standards - end of story. This is my personal experience.

Does the business model of an agency like PADI even allow that degree of adherence to standards and values?

Again, they are not stopping instructors like you from doing more/better but they certainly do not insist on it like GUE does.

Ed Hayes who made me aware of GUE in one of his trim/buoyancy workshops teaches most of his classes under the PADI label but infuses them strongly with the philosophy and standards from GUE. He produces excellent PADI divers who do not have to worry about being labeled "elitist" by those who miss the whole point of GUE/DIR. Something like this would be my recommendation for someone who is worried about choking on the DIR cool-aid.

 

[boulderjohn]

@boulderjohn I think it seems to be emphasized by some instructors definitions of "mastery" I've seen some very interesting definitions of "mastery" observing checkout dives... This is at the recreational level, not tech level

The word "mastery" is defined in the standards, and that is the definition that is to be used. The definition is consistent with the educational theory upon which it is based--mastery learning by Benjamin Bloom. I used to teach this concept in the world of education. I used to teach how to define mastery for different topics. I used to teach how to assess it. It is the way that almost all performance assessments are evaluated today, including Advanced Placement exams, law school exams, SATs, etc.

In mastery learning, as in the PADI definition, the degree of skill has to vary according to the level of performance being evaluated. If you are evaluating the skill of Little League baseball players, you will marvel at the excellence of a player who would not even be considered for the major leagues. A 5th grader can be given the exact same written assignment as a college student, but you have different expectations of mastery.

In almost all such cases, it is extremely difficult to describe a performance in objective terms. I used to do presentations in which I would present objective descriptors of a performance, and the audience would agree that they sounded just fine. Then I would give sample student performances that would be then scored by those objective criteria and given scores that were absurdly wrong to anyone with common sense.

The way they are scored is through benchmarking. Assessors see samples of work at different levels of performance in their training, and they thus gain a sense of what kind of score should be assigned to what level of performance. The system is remarkably accurate. In training teachers to score Advanced Placement performances, it takes surprisingly little training to get them to a 90% interrater reliability on a 9-point scale. That is how it is done in scuba. Instructors supposedly see enough passing and failing exercises in their training to understand how to evaluate a performance at that level on a simple 2-point scale.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I think the fundamental problem with mastery is that some define it as "the student didn't drown doing the skill." We all know that is not the intent or the actual definition, but that's the reality in many ways. There was a discussion thread somewhere on FB where a PADI instructor admitted to knowingly violating standards certifying people who were incompetent at performing different skills for the sake of his business.

In terms of objective standards, while I haven't read what RAID dictates, having a student perform skills while neutrally buoyant, trim, without sculling, and without a depth change of X, would be the right approach and applicable to most (all?) skills.

 

[Lobzilla]

Good argument!
And replacing pilot with diver would result in the ideal situation. That result should be something to aim for, regardless of the agency that the instructor is teaching for.

Real life however, shows that there's a side effect to this diver with superior skills. Not only the skills become superior, but so does the attitude. That's where the term elite comes in. Take for example this topic, which is about the choice between TDI and PADI. Doesn't take long before some divers of the Elite Corps start pushing the thread towards their own superior agency. Somehow, that elite attitude is very specific for GUE divers.

Happened before, will happen again.

Let's get down to this while still waiting for the popcorn.

I quoted an aviation adage verbatim. Personally, I would have said "A competent diver makes competent decisions to have to prove his practical competence as little as possible". However that does not sound nearly as polished as the original quote.

The underlying concept relates to the incident pit.

When a competent instructor "messes" with you or your team s/he is not just being a random jerk. S/he makes you aware of a vulnerability that exist. Now, you have to climb back out of the pit without making another stupid move that pushes you into the pit even deeper. You could stop there and wait for another simulated failure or you could ask yourself where else you left a vulnerability.

At some point, you begin to realize that even on a routine dive, even in normal life on land, every decision you make, every action you take either moves you out of or into the incident pit. Most people do not realize this because they operate on the shallow periphery of the pit for all of their lives. There, the level of pain is tolerable but it is still influenced by our choices.

When I had the opportunity to review cases of a state agency that deals with people who had "fallen on hard times" it was pretty obvious that their misery was the result of taking the wrong turn at many, many forks in their lives. Detailed, honest accident reports tell the same story. That's the longer version of "A superior pilot/diver/decision-maker uses superior judgement to avoid situations that necessitate his superior skills".

Teaching you certain skills and how to fix random failures is in the technical training syllabus of every agency. There are some differences in the suggested standard procedures between the agencies. But the huge difference is whether the training makes you acutely aware how you as the diver can control -at any moment- the number of things you may have to fix later. This involves more than a powerpoint presentation or printed materials telling you the right thing to do. This involves a completely different approach in the teaching process that starts at the agency level with the question of whether to certify as many customers as possible or whether to vastly expand the awareness and skills of any individual diver. The GUE slogan "Beginning with the end in mind" is not just referring to practical skills.

GUE does NOT promote anywhere, neither in their materials nor in any class, a self aggrandizing, arrogant, or ignorant attitude. If anything, their training cuts people's ego down two or three sizes. That some divers misinterpret high standards as an elitist attitude is out of their control just as it is that some people miss the point of the team approach.

GUE does NOT promote divers to be dependent on each other. They promote a team that consist of individually capable divers. The team is your backup brain. It's NEVER your primary brain and NEVER your nanny.

Who leads and who follows changes fluently in a good team if that's necessary or beneficial. So, you are the deco captain and the instructor yanks your mask. Big deal, #2 takes over seamlessly because #2 is already on the same page, was double checking your decisions and commands. Then, #2 looses the mask too. Now #3 will guide two blinded divers safely to the surface. #3 has no problem doing this because s/he was not just bumbling along up to that point. S/he was paying attention, understanding what's going on and re-checking the commands of #1 and then #2. If that does not yet convince you of the advantages of a well trained team, the instructor will throw in some manifold failures.

Of course, on the internet, everybody knows better. There is the solo rebreather diver who proudly states "We do not plan past two failures". Which means that he accepts injury or death if his rebreather fails and he looses his bailout gas or does not have enough of it. Sorry, that's not going to cut it for me. Two failures is where the fun should start and not end in training.

 

[Lobzilla]

There is another important aspect that proper technical and cave training should address. The student's mental ability to calmly and logically assess problems and finding appropriate solutions. Panic kills in these environments.

I am not sure whether there is some genetic difference in individuals that makes them gravitate to certain training and activities or whether we can take two identical twins, subject them to different training, and get two different levels of mental toughness.

But whatever makes people freak out or not, as a student you want to be pushed to the brink in training as much as possible. Either to find out where your limits are or to push them out a little further. Experiencing mental breakdown in training maybe annoying or embarrassing but that price is a fraction of what it would be if a real challenge ever exceeds the limits of our mental composure.

If you are not asking yourself in a technical/cave class why in the world you signed up for this or whether you should "ring the bell" now, then you are not getting your money's worth IMO. I am not advocating for random hazing here but I believe that the teaching process should make the student keenly aware of his/her mental limits and foster pushing these limits further out.

The approach of testing for failure instead of certifying at success will obviously lead to higher student dropout. The instructor will loose some customers forever. Also, the instructor needs much more awareness and skills to setup realistic training scenarios where s/he can safely resolve any chaos that could ensue. There are simply not many individuals out there who have the ability to go to that extend and they tend to gravitate to agencies that not only allow that but fully subscribe to this training approach.

 

[Germie]

You can be a DIR trained diver without having done any DIR course: just be an real and good autodidact.
The only problem is that in diving there is no place for the autodidactical diver.
The problem with diving is that there is no 'better' or 'worser' agency. On every dive you can get bent. There are no numbers that show proof that a CMAS diver ends more often in a chamber than a GUE diver. Or that padi divers have more accidents than iantd divers. You can choose the best instructor, but it turns in a worse instructor as the personality of the instructor does not fit you. Or the course is not given in the way it fits you. I prefer a personalised way for a course. That is how I decided to do courses with instructors. I do not like the idea of 1 day theory without diving, or without the option to shorten things if I already know that. Why spend 3 hours on nitrox theory if someone knows the ins and outs already? Then only test knowledge. In most agencies the instructor has this freedom. Spent more time on the theoryparts that is more difficult for the student.
And after the course, some divers turn into the 'I know all' mentality. This divers will get worser. Not a fault by the instructor, but just by the diver. As soon as you think there is nothing to improve anymore, your level will go down.

And yes, everybody knows it better. Respect each other please. I will not say it is stupid if you take a trimix at 30.2m, but don't decide that I have to use helium on a relaxing fundive in warm clear water at 55m. I use this example as the perception of taking a risk is different for everybody. And it can change over time also. Solodiving is not more dangerous than buddydiving, but some people state that is is dangerous without ever done it and without knowning facts. Deep trimixdiving is always a little bit more risky than diving to only 10m depth. But is trimxdiving directly dangerous? no. Nobody wants to die. Follow the rules, the rules in safety are in every agency more or less the same. Right gases, right amount of gases, don't skip deco, practise skills and don't do dives outside your comfortzone, use right equipment, etc.

 

[Lobzilla]

You can be a DIR trained diver without having done any DIR course: just be an real and good autodidact.
The only problem is that in diving there is no place for the autodidactical diver.
The problem with diving is that there is no 'better' or 'worser' agency. On every dive you can get bent. There are no numbers that show proof that a CMAS diver ends more often in a chamber than a GUE diver. Or that padi divers have more accidents than iantd divers. You can choose the best instructor, but it turns in a worse instructor as the personality of the instructor does not fit you. Or the course is not given in the way it fits you. I prefer a personalised way for a course. That is how I decided to do courses with instructors. I do not like the idea of 1 day theory without diving, or without the option to shorten things if I already know that. Why spend 3 hours on nitrox theory if someone knows the ins and outs already? Then only test knowledge. In most agencies the instructor has this freedom. Spent more time on the theoryparts that is more difficult for the student.
And after the course, some divers turn into the 'I know all' mentality. This divers will get worser. Not a fault by the instructor, but just by the diver. As soon as you think there is nothing to improve anymore, your level will go down.

And yes, everybody knows it better. Respect each other please. I will not say it is stupid if you take a trimix at 30.2m, but don't decide that I have to use helium on a relaxing fundive in warm clear water at 55m. I use this example as the perception of taking a risk is different for everybody. And it can change over time also. Solodiving is not more dangerous than buddydiving, but some people state that is is dangerous without ever done it and without knowning facts. Deep trimixdiving is always a little bit more risky than diving to only 10m depth. But is trimxdiving directly dangerous? no. Nobody wants to die. Follow the rules, the rules in safety are in every agency more or less the same. Right gases, right amount of gases, don't skip deco, practise skills and don't do dives outside your comfortzone, use right equipment, etc.

Germie,

As a cave instructor you may have spent some time in Northern Florida. When you ask there which instructor you should train with, you do not have to read much between the lines to find out who is considered competent or not in that community. Granted, nobody will claim there either that agency X is better than agency Y.

But the next time I am down there I could make a list of all cave instructors teaching there and I could solicit a peer vote. I could ask every instructor I run into to rate the other instructors on the list with either a thumbs up or thumbs down. Would you be surprised if there is one agency that would get very few if any thumbs down? (There may be an occasional comment "He is a demanding SOB" in that group though.)

So for the sake of peace let's agree that all agencies have great instructors but that there is at least one agency where you would be hard pressed to find a bad apple in their bushel. There are plenty of great apples in other agencies too but you can't just grab the first one. You need to pick and choose.

I am OK with solo diving. Trimix is great. Rebreathers are wonderful machines.
Solo rebreather dive with massive deco or hard overhead? No thanks, if there are other options.

Similarly, I have flown solo, single engine, in IFR conditions but I knew that I will be totally f***ed if the engine quits or the weather turns into serious hell. (A second engine does not make the weather better but twins have typically de-icing/anti-icing, better instruments, autopilot, etc.). I never pretended that this was a wise choice even after getting away with it.

 

[rjack321]

Of course, on the internet, everybody knows better. There is the solo rebreather diver who proudly states "We do not plan past two failures". Which means that he accepts injury or death if his rebreather fails and he looses his bailout gas or does not have enough of it. Sorry, that's not going to cut it for me. Two failures is where the fun should start and not end in training.

Lost CCR and lost BO is two majors - no agency teaches 2 majors and GUE doesn't do "two majors" either, although in a CCR cave class it could be done (just not solo, but nobody teaches solo CCR).
Diver 1 loses CCR and exits on BO
Diver 2 has CCR but lost BO

Even in a GUE class of 3 you won't ever have 2 majors like 2 OOA divers (so 3 divers sharing 2 working regs). A bunch of people losing their masks is a bunch of minors. I don't think TDI or PADI have explicit standards or expectations about major vs minor failures anymore than GUE does since doing them ends up being dangerous from a liability perspective - breath hold embolism having 3 divers share 2 regs while ascending etc.