The depth shall be 60, 60 shall the depth be, 61 is right out unless your AOW certified????

[KenGordon]

I don't understand this. the RSTC multi-agency agreed requirements (these are minimums, agencies can add more) are:
"(2) Physical Conditioning and Watermanship Evaluation.
The student shall effectively demonstrate basic watermanship ability by performing, to an instructor, the watermanship evaluation required by a training organization. This watermanship evaluation shall include either: a) continuous 200 yard (183 metre) surface distance swim and a 10 minute survival swim/float without the use of mask, fins, snorkel or of other swimming aids; b) 300 yard swim using mask, fins and snorkel, and a 10 minute survival swim/float without mask, fins, snorkel or other swimming aid. If an exposure suit is used, the wearer must be neutrally buoyant at the surface"

So, did you teach them to swim first?

The RSTC doesn't matter here. There is a swimming test that is required to be finally qualified but it is not a gating item at the start. Unlike most of the people operating under the RSTC rules we can take as long as it takes.

 

[boulderjohn]

John,

If you'll look at my post, I think I said that PADI did require the CESA, then gave the actual teaching outline.

Concerning those "silly and unnecessary swimming requirements..." some would say that those showed skill in the water. Without that, when something goes wrong the diver is more likely to panic.

Oh, I think you need to be able to swim to be a scuba diver, but the requirements need not be as severe as those were.

But back to my question. You attacked modern scuba instruction, saying, "The diving industry is now selling courses that were in the past included in the basic scuba course...." I asked you for specific examples of this. Do you have any?

 

[2airishuman]

I could be mistaken but I believe that his point may have been that dives deeper than 60' were allowed, if not encouraged, during open water training in the early history of the sport.

I don't know the history very well, but some people who were certified in the very early years talk about practicing CESAs multiple times from depth during training.

 

[boulderjohn]

I could be mistaken but I believe that his point may have been that dives deeper than 60' were allowed, if not encouraged, during open water training in the early history of the sport.

1. I don't know the history very well, but some people who were certified in the very early years talk about practicing CESAs multiple times from depth during training.

The threads clearly showed that the language on depths has NOT changed appreciably in the past decades.

2. The AOW certification that supposedly was created to take stuff out of the OW course was an addition to the course created around 1965 by Los Angeles County to give divers exposure to different kinds of diving (including deeper diving) and thus keep them interested in diving.

3. Doing multiple CESAs during a class is an instructor decision, and always has been. Can you show that it was ever a requirement? Was it moved to a later course in order to sell that later course, as was claimed? There was a significant change to CESA throughout nearly all agencies in nearly all countries in the early 1990s. A UHMS study found that the CESA was the number one reason for incidents, including fatalities, during instruction. The study recommended a number of changes to the instructional process for CESA, and pretty much all agencies adopted those recommendations. One important change was putting the regulator in the mouth. Before that, it was common to require the regulator be out of the mouth for instruction so that the instructor could plainly see that the student was not inhaling. The only place that change was NOT made is Belgium, and a recent study there showed that--guess what?--the number one cause of accidents during instruction in Belgium is the CESA.

There are several agencies that have chosen not to teach CESA at all. They include BSAC and UTD. I think GUE does not teach it either, but I could be wrong. NASE does not teach it in the opeen water.
...........

For about 10 years now I have regularly challenged people when they keep repeating the clichés about instruction being dumbed down in recent years, etc. etc. etc. I ask people to give specific examples, and they never can. In the two decades I have been diving, the only thing removed from the OW course is buddy breathing, which used to be OPTIONAL but is now not done. It was not moved to a later course, as was claimed in this thread; it was removed altogether because it is considered too dangerous to be used in real life. In contrast, the current OW course I teach has quite a few standards that were added. So the OW course now includes more material to be learned, not less.

 

[boulderjohn]

I am going to anticipate the other typical rant I hear about modern instructors cutting corners and skipping standards. Yes, it happens, but it always happened.

In this History of NAUI, Al Tillman (NAUI Instructor #1) tells that they had a problem right from the start (1960) because they issued the student certification cards to instructors when students enrolled in the courses, not when they completed them. They knew that many students were getting the cards without completing the class. They knew of cases when students got their certification cards without even attending a class.

That history of NAUI also offers the opinion that the average student completing a modern OW class is a better diver than many of the instructors who formed NAUI in 1960.

My cousin's training in the early 1960s was completed in one short session by the salesman in the sporting goods store where he bought his gear. He told him how the equipment worked, and he told him not to hold his breath.

My instructor did indeed cut corners and skip standards when I was certified, but that was decades ago. I did not realize it had happened until I became a professional myself years later and took my first good look at the requirements.

On one of my first real dive trips, again nearly two decades ago, a very unskilled diver was part of our group for 2 days. He did 3 of the 4 dives, but did not feel well and did not do the 4th. He was just another diver in the group, and he ran low on air before everyone else on all 3 dives. When he did, the DM sent him to the surface alone. When the boat got in that second day, I saw to my surprise that he was greeted on the shore by his instructor. Those 4 dives, including the one he did not do, were his OW checkout dives--no instructor present, and no skills performed. He passed.

 

[TMHeimer]

John, I've heard a few times that rescue skills (other than share air/ascent and 2 or 3 tows) were taught in OW several decades ago. I have no personal knowledge of this. Do you know if this was true and if so was it an official part of the course or instructors' decision? If this was part of the course then it could be said that Rescue cert. (and maybe AOW?) is now a separate course to be sold. If it is true then I would wonder what the cost (inflation considered) of a 1965 OW course compared to now.

 

[boulderjohn]

John, I've heard a few times that rescue skills (other than share air/ascent and 2 or 3 tows) were taught in OW several decades ago. I have no personal knowledge of this. Do you know if this was true and if so was it an official part of the course or instructors' decision? If this was part of the course then it could be said that Rescue cert. (and maybe AOW?) is now a separate course to be sold. If it is true then I would wonder what the cost (inflation considered) of a 1965 OW course compared to now.

I have no idea about the history of the rescue course, when those skills were added, etc. The rescue course is roughly the same now as it was when I started diving, and the only recent change in the OW course is the removal of the optional buddy breathing--which was not then moved anywhere. Any rescue skills taken out of the OW course must have been taken out decades ago.

My efforts to find the answer in a search were not rewarded. The closest I could find was the Wikipedia site, which said that only certain agencies offer a rescue diver course, and that "historically, the course was treated as a separate 'speciality' rather than a mainstream certification in itself (and arguably it still is in many organization's certification structure), but most advanced training is contingent upon having previously completed the Rescue Diver certification, and thus it effectively becomes a tier in the training."

 

[boulderjohn]

Further thoughts on rescue skills....

The inclusion or exclusion of one rescue skill in the OW course--surfacing the unconscious diver--has been debated many times on ScubaBoard. Some agencies do include it in the OW course, but most don't. My sheer speculation is that if it was indeed once part of the OW course and then moved out, what follows is the likely reason.

In the rescue class, we teach students that when they come upon a seemingly unresponsive diver, they are to first check for responsiveness. Having determined that the diver is unresponsive, a slow and deliberate process is begun to bring the diver to the surface. If the regulator is out of the mouth (as it almost always will be), it is not to be put back. Once the diver is brought to the surface and made buoyant, the rescue breath scenario begins. When I teach this, I cannot help but wonder if this scenario has ever resulted in a successful rescue of a diver who was unconscious and not breathing under water. In fact, I have asked this question on ScubaBaord before, and I don't recall anyone every being able to cite an example of a successful rescue under those circumstances. I therefore suspect that it is not included in the OW class because it would be considered a waste to spend that much time teaching a skill that students will almost certainly never need and will even more certainly not do any good.

 

[Storker]

buddy breathing [...] is considered too dangerous to be used in real life.

Risking a slight hijack of the thread: Why? I've actually trained buddy breathing with my regular buddy, thinking it might come in handy if the smelly stuff really hit the rotating ventilator device. Is that a bad idea, and, if so, why?

 

[dumpsterDiver]

The threads clearly showed that the language on depths has NOT changed appreciably in the past decades.

2. The AOW certification that supposedly was created to take stuff out of the OW course was an addition to the course created around 1965 by Los Angeles County to give divers exposure to different kinds of diving (including deeper diving) and thus keep them interested in diving.

3. Doing multiple CESAs during a class is an instructor decision, and always has been. Can you show that it was ever a requirement? Was it moved to a later course in order to sell that later course, as was claimed? There was a significant change to CESA throughout nearly all agencies in nearly all countries in the early 1990s. A UHMS study found that the CESA was the number one reason for incidents, including fatalities, during instruction. The study recommended a number of changes to the instructional process for CESA, and pretty much all agencies adopted those recommendations. One important change was putting the regulator in the mouth. Before that, it was common to require the regulator be out of the mouth for instruction so that the instructor could plainly see that the student was not inhaling. The only place that change was NOT made is Belgium, and a recent study there showed that--guess what?--the number one cause of accidents during instruction in Belgium is the CESA.

There are several agencies that have chosen not to teach CESA at all. They include BSAC and UTD. I think GUE does not teach it either, but I could be wrong. NASE does not teach it in the opeen water.
...........

For about 10 years now I have regularly challenged people when they keep repeating the clichés about instruction being dumbed down in recent years, etc. etc. etc. I ask people to give specific examples, and they never can. In the two decades I have been diving, the only thing removed from the OW course is buddy breathing, which used to be OPTIONAL but is now not done. It was not moved to a later course, as was claimed in this thread; it was removed altogether because it is considered too dangerous to be used in real life. In contrast, the current OW course I teach has quite a few standards that were added. So the OW course now includes more material to be learned, not less.

Buddy breathing was NOT optional - it was the only way to share air when I was certified.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, performance of a CESA from 60 feet was required for PADI certification. This was made very clear during my dive class by the instructor.