The Philosophy of Diver Training

[MXGratefulDiver]

And how long does that take to cover really? The 120 rule is a fine way to cover the idea of the relationship between dive time and depth and anyone can understand it. Surface interval requirements can be equally easily explained. Yes, the details become more complicated for multiple dives, but divers aren't going to have tables with them (and I've been on more than one boat where my wife and I were the only one's with tables -- to include the boat crew) which means they'll have to use best guess heuristics to determine if what the computer is reading is sane anyway.

Not long at all ... and I think you're missing my point, which is in response to Pete's "new technology" comments.

The technology is irrelevent in this case ... what's relevent is the concepts. It doesn't matter whether you're teaching tables or the PDC.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Guy Alcala]

<snip> Without trying to "bash PADI" (although I will likely be accused of it), I think it's worth noting that:

PADI does not allow their instructors to modify the minimum standards in the same manner as other agencies. If NAUI requires 10 swim cycles for their in-water assessment (minimum standards), they along with other agencies (CMAS, ACUC and others) encourage their instructors to surpass these standards. In the case of an instructor who faces preparing students for more challenging conditions, the option is there for the instructor to increase the standards and insist that the new level be achieved before the student is certified.

Similar conditions are applicable for rescue and buddy breathing. Many agencies allow or insist that these skills be taught, PADI prohibits their instructors from teaching them in the OW program. I obviously have a problem with this philosophy.

I would honestly like to know what other people think about this? If the goal is to produce a diver who's capable of acting in the capacity of a Buddy and diving without supervision, why is underwater rescue/recovery of a victim not required?
Are there instructors out there who feel right about certifying a non-swimmer to dive in 32 degree water temperature, with high currents and large tides? or will they admit that such standards are inadequate for such conditions? If so, what do they do if these types of conditions are normal?

Adding to and modifying content (upwards) to a scuba program has been an acceptable way of producing divers for many years, through many well respected agencies. If this is not done (as in the case of PADI), how can PADI divers be certified in challenging conditions in many such locations world-wide?

Agency standards are minimal. As I've already mentioned, some agencies expect the instructor to train the diver to dive safely in the local area and increase the standards accordingly. I believe this is reasonable as conditions vary and the training program has to reflect this. How does PADI address this issue if the instructor is not allowed to modify something as simple as the in-water assessment requirements???

You can add GUE to the list of agencies who allow the instructor to modify standards upwards for certification. Quoting from GUE Standards v. 5.1 (2010, emphasis added):

3. Instructors: GUE instructors are encouraged to exceed minimum training standards when these safely contribute to a participant&#8217;s learning process. Instructors are also actively encouraged to deny qualification to students who are not completely prepared for the level pursued.


http://www.gue.com/?q=en/standards

As an example of this, several of our local Nor Cal divers just completed Fundies. The swim standard for Fundies is 300 yards in 14 minutes, but the instructor apparently considered that was inadequate for local conditions, so increased it to 400 yards in the same time. I don't know if the fact that all the students were taking it in doubles was a factor, or if he just considered the basic standard inadequate for our conditions regardless of what gear might be worn while diving.

As far as Buddy Breathing and rescue from the bottom, GUE's new rec. classes don't seem to specify the method of air sharing used, and only specifically require unconscious diver rescue in Rec 2 instead of Rec 1, if I understand it right. Surface rescue seems to be the the standard in Rec 1, although there's nothing that would prohibit an instructor from requiring more if they felt it was necessary. Without seeing the instructional material I can't tell if my reading is correct. Here's what the standards say for Rec 1 (min. 8 days/60 hours):

Academic Topics:

9. Accident and Problem Solving Underwater

Land Drills and Topics:

10. Basic 5 Rescue skills

Required Dive Skills and Drills:

6. Efficiently and comfortably demonstrate how to donate gas to an out-of-gas diver.

7. Efficiently and comfortably demonstrate how to donate gas to an out-of-gas diver followed by an
ascent to the surface, utilizing Minimum Decompression.

17. Demonstrate dive rescue techniques


And here's the standards for Rec 2 (5 days/40 hours, min. 25 dives beyond OW cert.):

Academic Topics:

8. Rescue skills

Land Drills and Topics:

4. Gas sharing and touch contact

7. Rescue skills


Required Dive Skills and Drills:

4. Demonstrate proficiency in procedures for gas failures, including valve manipulation and gas sharing.

8. Demonstrate proficiency in the use of touch-contact communication during out-of-gas situations.

10. Gas-sharing scenarios to include a gas-sharing horizontal swim for at least 200 feet/60 meters.

11. Gas-sharing scenarios to include a direct ascent while managing decompression obligations.

13. Demonstrate proficiency in recovering an unconscious diver to the surface and the surface management of a range of simulated diving incidents.


As for SSI, I once asked my instructor if they were allowed to deny cert to a student who had met standards but in their opinion was unqualified to dive independently. I never did get a straight answer to that, but I got the impression it would be difficult. I don't know if SSI instructors are allowed to increase standards; I know that the head instructor where I got certified only allows his instructors to teach a 'classic' AOW course, i.e. you must do Deep, Night/Limited Vis, Nav., & one elective chosen from Boat, Equipment Techniques, or Drysuit.

SSI does at least require you to have a certain number of dives between each certification. Theoretically, you can't get an SSI AOW cert until you've done 24 dives (you can take the class prior to that), although I took the class with a guy in my dive club who only had 13 dives when he started it, and was given the cert after we'd done our 5 dives - as he told me later, apparently no one checked to see how many he had. I only had 23 at the end of the class so went back out and did a solo dive to get 24 before my instructor headed home. Seems I needn't have bothered.

Guy

 

[The Chairman]

As an experienced diver how can you say that a PDC is an improvement over tables, I do not know what kind of diving you do but the diving I teach tables are your primary source of dive planning and your computer is secondary, you always have tables as a backup to your dive.

I can say it, because it's true. I don't teach tables to my OW students unless they ask. A PDC is quite superior for lots of reasons. But if you are a Luddite (afraid of technology), then you would not agree.

You have already stated that in the event of a PDC failure you would simply use the backup you always carry in your bag along with regs and spgs. The backup in your bag does not have your dives

Please show me where I indicated ANYTHING of the sort. That's just putting words in my mouth, and you do it in almost every post. Please stop.

A back up in your bag will not work for 24 hours after your last dive. HOWEVER, a backup on your person is available right now. I tend to dive with two PDCs on me. Partly because I like redundancy and quite often I am testing a new PDC on the market.

Here seems to be a remarkable issue... a distrust of the PDC seems tied to a distrust in modern teaching methods. The irony is that you are communicating on a PC and that computers crunched the numbers of the various algorithms to produce the tables you BLINDLY put your trust in. It's ironic... doncha think?

NetDoc's top ten reasons why a PDC beats the heck out of tables!

​

Spoiler

10) Longer and more accurate memories that are downloadable for later analysis.

​

Spoiler

9) Account for variable depths on the dive.

​

Spoiler

8) Easier to carry and use.

Spoiler

7) Can adjust conservatism.

​

Spoiler

6) They never get narced.

​

Spoiler

5) Easily adjustable for different Mixes.

Spoiler

4) Alarms when you ascend too quickly.

​

Spoiler

3) Alarms when you exceed your NDL.

Spoiler

2) Alarms when you exceed your MOD



and finally...

Spoiler

1) They really piss off the Luddites while attracting the babes!

​

​

 

[Crush]

A back up in your bag will not work for 24 hours after your last dive. HOWEVER, a backup on your person is available right now. I tend to dive with two PDCs on me. Partly because I like redundancy and quite often I am testing a new PDC on the market.

Here seems to be a remarkable issue... a distrust of the PDC seems tied to a distrust in modern teaching methods.

I am going to take haul my BC-wearing, certified-only-two-years ago a$$ to Ginnie in a few weeks to learn to cavern dive. I will be wearing two computers - one on my wrist, one console. I work with computer clusters and Class IV lasers. I don't consider myself to be a Luddite, nor do I pine for the "good 'ol days" when I learned to dive because for me that was 2007/08 (a period dominated by particularly horrible gangsta rap). But I still feel that buddy breathing, swimming underwater with a mask off being guided by your buddy, and the rescue of an unconscious diver at depth and at the surface are skills that any diver should have. I learned all these skills in basic OW (ACUC).

 

[Thalassamania]

And how long does that take to cover really? The 120 rule is a fine way to cover the idea of the relationship between dive time and depth and anyone can understand it. Surface interval requirements can be equally easily explained. Yes, the details become more complicated for multiple dives, but divers aren't going to have tables with them (and I've been on more than one boat where my wife and I were the only one's with tables -- to include the boat crew) which means they'll have to use best guess heuristics to determine if what the computer is reading is sane anyway.

I always have tables with me as a backup, so do all the divers that I dive with. I guess we run in rather different circles.

I can say it, because it's true. I don't teach tables to my OW students unless they ask. A PDC is quite superior for lots of reasons.

I don't recall anyone discussing the operational differences between tables and computers. Clearly I come down on the side of computers since I was a strong advocate for computers since, I suspect, before you even started diving. What we were discussing was classes that teach computers only and that's a whole different question.

NetDoc's top ten reasons why a PDC beats the heck out of tables!

10) Longer and more accurate memories that are downloadable for later analysis. I used depth/time data logs for almost a decade before computers became available, hell ... my current watch has a depth/time data logger in it.
9) Account for variable depths on the dive. That's the main advantage, and the biggest danger.
8) Easier to carry and use. No
7) Can adjust conservatism. Easier with tables
6) They never get narced. Neither do tables
5) Easily adjustable for different Mixes. If you trust the same deco model for different gases with different mixes, and I don't.
4) Alarms when you ascend too quickly. I don't need that kind of baby sitting, in fact I find it annoying.
3) Alarms when you exceed your NDL. I don't need that kind of baby sitting, in fact I find it annoying.
2) Alarms when you exceed your MOD. I don't need that kind of baby sitting, in fact I find it annoying.
1) They really piss off the Luddites while attracting the babes! If you need a computer to attract the babes you must be really limited. Before I was married it seemed that being a Luddite by freediving to 100 feet and licking my eyebrows was more than sufficient, somehow they never inquired about my computer.

 

[Walter]

Walter, yes the skin diving skills are required, but it is up to the instructor as to when they are introduced/demonstrated.

That is great news, Peter. What skills are specifically required now?

Online academics.

I don't really see the big deal one way or the other. If it's used to suppliment instruction, it can be an excellent tool. I think we all use it to one degree or another when we post on ScubaBoard. When it's used because the instructor in unable to actually teach, I see it as a problem. Of course it's not that big of a deal because 25 years ago instructors who couldn't teach simply plugged in a video tape. There's not much difference.

Teaching the USE of the PDC rather than tables.

I agree we need to teacfh the use of dive computers, but I don't understand your objection to tables.

Elimination of certain skills due to excessive risks (buddy breathing).

There are no excessive risks to properly taught buddy breathing. As you are so fond of saying - it aint rocket science. Pete, buddy breathing is easy.

Teaching the use of weight integrated BCDs.

I don't object to weight integrated BCs for those who like them. They are fine in the right conditions for the right people. Some people love them, some people hate them. I have former students who fall into both camps. I have to agree with those who've pointed out their limitations. There's only so much weight you can put in those pockets.

Trim and buoyancy even in the pool (which have never been taught adequately).

This is hardly new. I was required to learn this when I learned to dive back in '83. When I got into teaching I discovered both were required in YMCA standards. They are still both required in SEI standards. I admit in many classes they are often negelected, but I suspect they are still required (well, buoyancy anyway, I'm not sure about trim) by all agencies. I know at least one agency has admitted to failing to teach buoyancy in its entry level class by offering a specialty class in buoyancy (and making it an option in their advanced class), but that does not mean the rest of us don't teach and require those skills. It certainly doesn't make them new.

When the industrial revolution was in it's infancy, quite a few artisans in the textile industry were violently opposed to the use of technology (automatic looms) for making fabrics. They often complained about the dumbing down of textile fabrics and that you really weren't safe in a quickly made fabric. Everyone knows that fabric takes time to produce and that Mickey D fabrics are just not up to the task. They often referred to an imaginary leader by the name of General Ludd and were so given the name of Luddites. After all, it's hard to arrest or hang an imaginary leader.

Close, but no banana. Ned Lud was probably not a real person, but no one knows for sure. The Luddites destroyed looms to protest losing jobs. They never complained about the dumbing down or safety of fabrics. This was an economic movement. People were worried about starving after losing their jobs. It was related to technology because automatic looms were eliminating jobs. It had nothing to do with a concern over quality. Luddites have nothing to do with the current discussion.

Those who oppose technological advances often have the Luddite POV that anything "new" is bad. They continue that we need "tried and proven" methods that quite a few of us see as antiquated. We can either learn from history and avoid being Luddites, or we can take exception to the use of the term. Referencing the evolution of standards as "dumbing them down" is equally as offensive but we don't see Walter complaining about that.

I don't believe you can make the case that anyone here has the opinion that anything new is bad. New things are often good. On the other hand, things aren't automatically good because they are new. I use a dive computer, I've been using one since the mid '80s when they were new. Today, they're old. Let's dump them in favor of a new method of keeping track of our nitrogen loading. Let's keep track of nitrogen loading psychically. It's new, it's gotta be better than the old method - computers. Right?

Dumbing down standards. I've seen the term. I may have used it in the past. I don't remember seeing it in this thread, but then this thread is close to 1000 posts long. If it was used in this thread, I agree it shouldn't have been. It is purely an emotional term that serves no use in describing the very real problem to which it refers.

Getting back on topic....

Claiming that NAUI allows buddy breathing WITHOUT making it clear that buddy breathing while changing depths is not allowed in NAUI training is misleading.

If he were teaching buddy breathing in a NAUI class, I would agree. He's not. He's making a valid point about differences in standards between two agencies. That's a different kettle of fish.

Wayne Mitchell (me he rest in peace)

When? How? I'm sorry to hear this. I liked Wayne.

I don't see anyone making that argument except you, in what appears to me to be a vain attempt to justify egregious name calling.

True.

An "excessive risk" for buddy breathing has never been demonstrated.

Sure it has.

Let's see the data.

This agreement is ONLY among a few. It's certainly NOT general in nature.

It has been in this thread. I suggest you read the thread again.

Pete, you need to chill you are ranting ang raving, POV and luddite is a load of bollocks, you are not even making sense in a lot of your statements.

True.

You have already stated that in the event of a PDC failure you would simply use the backup you always carry in your bag along with regs and spgs. The backup in your bag does not have your dives

Please show me where I indicated ANYTHING of the sort. That's just putting words in my mouth, and you do it in almost every post. Please stop.

Pete, Thalassamania didn't say that, TechBlue did. Who is putting words into whose mouth?

 

[Guy Alcala]

When? How? I'm sorry to hear this. I liked Wayne.

Wayne L. Mitchell


Guy

 

[InTheDrink]

Well PDC's aren't going away anytime soon. Knowing the tables will be a nice-to-have.

Getting back to MY original point ....

Is there some middle ground here? I'm speaking again from a conservation perspective?

It seems that the more people we have interested in the seas the more likely it's preservation. And so easy scuba qualifications would seem a great way to achieve that.

However, the drop out rate from scuba is large. And ex-scuba's I don't think give that much of a **** about conservation. Cos they aint looking at it.

So it seems like an axis of best retention for minimum training (read cost). But given that the objective of the major agencies isn't conservation, it's profit, it still makes sense to keep standards (cost) at an absolute minimum. So you're back to square one. Or are you? Can anyone think of a way to achieve good but non-intrusive, overly long, certifications that would have mass appeal and also have good retention?

This seems to be the interesting question rather than whether fast food training is great or whether fine dining training is great. They're different things, for different needs. But is there any 'good living' diving certification that might lead the diver towards the fine dining?

J

 

[InTheDrink]

I always have tables with me as a backup, so do all the divers that I dive with. I guess we run in rather different circles.
I don't recall anyone discussing the operational differences between tables and computers. Clearly I come down on the side of computers since I was a strong advocate for computers since, I suspect, before you even started diving. What we were discussing was classes that teach computers only and that's a whole different question.

NetDoc's top ten reasons why a PDC beats the heck out of tables!

10) Longer and more accurate memories that are downloadable for later analysis. I used depth/time data logs for almost a decade before computers became available, hell ... my current watch has a depth/time data logger in it.
9) Account for variable depths on the dive. That's the main advantage, and the biggest danger.
8) Easier to carry and use. No
7) Can adjust conservatism. Easier with tables
6) They never get narced. Neither do tables
5) Easily adjustable for different Mixes. If you trust the same deco model for different gases with different mixes, and I don't.
4) Alarms when you ascend too quickly. I don't need that kind of baby sitting, in fact I find it annoying.
3) Alarms when you exceed your NDL. I don't need that kind of baby sitting, in fact I find it annoying.
2) Alarms when you exceed your MOD. I don't need that kind of baby sitting, in fact I find it annoying.
1) They really piss off the Luddites while attracting the babes! If you need a computer to attract the babes you must be really limited. Before I was married it seemed that being a Luddite by freediving to 100 feet and licking my eyebrows was more than sufficient, somehow they never inquired about my computer.

Thal, if tables were easier and better than PDCs we'd all be using them.

PDCs have a major $ obstacle in comparison to tables. The only reason they can overcome this obstacle is because they make life a lot easier. And for a lot of recreational dives this is 100% fine - no-one's undertaking K2 let's remember.

And my Stinger IS sexy. And has got me laid on occasion in non diving circles.

p.s. I'll also leave you to licking your eyebrows by yourself. Seems like customs have moved on some since the sixties

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I use a dive computer, I've been using one since the mid '80s when they were new. Today, they're old. Let's dump them in favor of a new method of keeping track of our nitrogen loading. Let's keep track of nitrogen loading psychically. It's new, it's gotta be better than the old method - computers. Right?

Some of us do that ... it's called ratio deco ... and those of you who don't use that method are all a bunch of Luddites ... :mooner:

... Bob (Grateful Diver)