The Philosophy of Diver Training

[TechBlue]

Ahem what? Where do I tell people to make a dive and then change (or add) PDCs? I didn't, I haven't and I wouldn't.

The question was "what would the diver do if their PDC took a dump in the middle of a weeks diving", that was your answer. You also said, "there is a good chance they would have to figure it for themselves", how could they if they did not have or know how to use tables.

 

[The Chairman]

So, I never told them to change PDCs between dives? Of course I didn't. Thanks. Have a nice day.

 

[TechBlue]

So, I never told them to change PDCs between dives? Of course I didn't. Thanks. Have a nice day.

You did say they would have to replace it and figure it out for themselves, again how could they if they don't have or know how to use tables and would they know not to simply use another PDC and go diving? You are incredibly selective in what and how you choose to answer. Have a nice day yourself.

 

[tomfcrist]

Ah gee ... another Luddite.

Welcome to the posse, bro ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

by definition a luddite is opposed to advancements in technology.....not true for me.
I love PDC's and use them frequently, however i understand the need for understanding tables and the theorys that they are based on.

 

[The Chairman]

Dear NetDoc,

Many of your posts seem to equate those who do not share your views with the technologically inept, those opposed to progress, and practitioners of training practices from pre-historic times. How do you respond to a new diver who believes that diving standards are too watered down? Or am I too new and inexperienced a diver (in your mind, since this would prove to be convenient) to have a valid opinion? Could it be that only you, personally, strike the ideal balance between experience and stagnation?

Just curious.

Hey. I came into this thread, because it was obvious that one agency was being bashed. I don't care HOW others train, as long as they allow me to train my divers as I wish. I haven't called anyone's training unsafe or incomplete. I do see a lot of the opposition to the newer training as being anti-technology and that is the Luddite POV. I don't know that I have called Walter, Thal, Bob or even Tech Blue a Luddite... but I have shown a number of Luddite POVs that crop up. If they choose to take that as a slam: so be it. They have no compunction telling us that some classes are incomplete and dangerous so I find the umbrage a bit disingenuous.

Now a series of untruths are being offered as my own thoughts (like I suggested that people should change PDCs between dives, etc) and that I am somehow AGAINST others teaching in their own ways. Nothing could be further from the truth. While I won't emulate their teaching methods, I certainly have no issues with old style training. No, I haven't seen the products of their work, and that's OK. The old ways work. The news ways work better for me.

Yes, I embrace new technologies that make sense to me! No, you won't see a lot of gadgets in my kit, but I am not above innovating and modifying something to make it work for me. I am not, and will never be the end all of teaching paradigms. I'll leave that up to guys like BoulderJohn who have made a real science of it.

However, when I see changes maligned as being something they are not, it simply makes my blood boil! Buddy breathing is a good example here. A few instructors have characterized the loss of buddy breathing as being a part of a plot to decrease standards rather than what it really was: a deprecated skill set that has safety issues. After all, this is a "Philosophy of Diver Training" and I think it would be better couched as a need for risk reduction rather than mere simplification.

Look at the various slogans of the various agencies to get an idea of their philosophies:

NAUI: Dive safety through Education.
SDI: The no nonsense approach.
PADI: The Way the World Learns to Dive.
SEI: Learn from the best where a full education makes the difference.

Maybe others can fill in their agency's philosophy.

 

[The Chairman]

by definition a luddite is opposed to advancements in technology.....not true for me.
I love PDC's and use them frequently, however i understand the need for understanding tables and the theorys that they are based on.

Theory is important. Both tables and PDCs are based on the same theory and not on each other.

I like to teach with the tools my students will be using. If they give me an inkling that they want to learn tables, then they learn tables. I have had that happen with some NitrOx classes, but not often. Most of my students are comfortable with their PDCs and so am I.

 

[DCBC]

Hey. I came into this thread, because it was obvious that one agency was being bashed.

Because that is your opinion, does not make it a reality.

I certainly have no issues with old style training.

That's Sir is laughable:

"They continue that we need "tried and proven" methods that quite a few of us see as antiquated."

"As an instructor, my focus is on efficient, applicable training which eschews the macho mentality in favor of an intelligent approach to problem solving. Some just don't get it, and their training is demonstrative of that."

"Quick, fun and easy will probably weed out the slow, pedantic and hard. Snap! It already has!"

"Not interested in becoming a "DCBC Macho Diver"? Then go take the FUN course."

"Sure, it will rattle a few Dinosaurs that can't adapt and keep up with the rest of us."

The record keeps repeating... You are entitled to your opinion, but don't try to tell us that you have no issues with old style training!

A few instructors have characterized the loss of buddy breathing as being a part of a plot to decrease standards rather than what it really was: a deprecated skill set that has safety issues.

If you are suggesting that safety is decreased, this would only be true if the students were not properly trained. As this takes time, it seems clear why you would not feel the skill to be valuable. Especially if the priority is "FUN."

After all, this is a "Philosophy of Diver Training" and I think it would be better couched as a need for risk reduction rather than mere simplification.

Look at the various slogans of the various agencies to get an idea of their philosophies:

NAUI: Dive safety through Education.
SDI: The no nonsense approach.
PADI: The Way the World Learns to Dive.
SEI: Learn from the best where a full education makes the difference.

Maybe others can fill in their agency's philosophy.

This is not a training philosophy; it's a marketing slogan. I would have thought that you would know the difference.

 

[The Chairman]

Because that is your opinion, does not make it a reality.

Because you bash, does not make it otherwise.

That's Sir is laughable: <snip> The record keeps repeating... You are entitled to your opinion, but don't try to tell us that you have no issues with old style training!

Dude... I have big issues with your "Only my way is suitable" POV. No, I don't teach like you and I never want to.

If you are suggesting that safety is decreased, this would only be true if the students were not properly trained. As this takes time, it seems clear why you would not feel the skill to be valuable. Especially if the priority is "FUN."

I am suggesting that the skill is both deprecated and has caused students harm and even death. Most people learn to Scuba to have fun. Keeping my classes fun and efficient are two of my main (but not only) objectives. You don't like "fun": I get that. As it is, I DO teach buddy breathing, but use it as a confidence builder and I NEVER allow them to ascend during that exercise.

This is not a training philosophy; it's a marketing slogan. I would have thought that you would know the difference.

Why is it their "slogan"? Because they think it's what makes them unique in this marketplace. Why don't you like them? Because they don't push your agenda of greed and avarice being their sole motivating force? That would appear to be the case.

 

[DCBC]

Dude... I have big issues with your "Only my way is suitable" POV.

Again you take fictitious ideas and attach credibility to them where none exists. I have never suggested that my way is the only suitable point-of-view; on the contrary. Why do you fabricate such nonsense?

I am suggesting that the skill is both deprecated and has caused students harm and even death.

That is not my experience. What is your source of information?

Most people learn to Scuba to have fun.

It is my experience that people who engage in diver training are not primarily motivated by having FUN (which has been agreed to by others). They participate in the learning process to learn; to gain knowledge and skill so they may participate in the activity safely.

If you asked my new students whether they wish to have FUN or learn to dive SAFELY, I would be very surprised if 100% did not choose the latter. The fact that we can make the experience enjoyable is secondary, but we shouldn't lose sight of the goal and that's training a safe diver to act as a valuable member of the buddy team and to dive unsupervised. Granted, your goal may be different than mine.

There may well be a different type of person that is attracted to your type of training. My students have compared the quick courses and have elected for a more extensive program. This is not to say that everyone wants this. That's why there are different instructors teaching in different ways and if the way you teach works for you, have at it. Just know that you can't turn out a student in 25 hours to the same level as you could if you provided them with twice the training; don't delude yourself in thinking otherwise.

Why is it their "slogan"? Because they think it's what makes them unique in this marketplace. Why don't you like them? Because they don't push your agenda of greed and avarice being their sole motivating force? That would appear to be the case.

A slogan's purpose is to provide catchwords which will increase revenue.

It's not a matter of like or dislike:

1. I believe they restrict the instructor; which causes them to look for ways around the rules to adequately prepare the student for some diving conditions.

2. I do not accept "prohibiting" training like rescue and buddy-breathing without reason (only to require both in some other course down the road).

3. Some people may think that teaching weak and non-swimmers may be fine, but it's an accident waiting to happen in some diving conditions.

4. Other certification bodies allow and encourage their instructors to exceed the training minimums and add additional content that is reasonably required to keep the diver safe in local conditions. PADI provides a one size fits all solution; which is insufficient for all diving conditions.

When safety is compromised for the sake of higher profits, I have a problem with any organization or person doing this; not just when it comes to diver certification.

PADI is not the only organization in-which I feel the standards are inadequate. The difference is it is the only organization (of which I'm aware), that will not allow their instructors to raise these standards and make them compulsory for certification. All other agencies require minimum standards to be achieved, but encourage their instructors to raise the bar.

I believe these to be accurate truthful observations. Rather than throwing insults, perhaps address the content of my statements in a respectful way and I will do likewise.

 

[The Chairman]

Again you take fictitious ideas and attach credibility to them where none exists. I have never suggested that my way is the only suitable point-of-view; on the contrary. Why do you fabricate such nonsense?

Should we start a poll?

That is not my experience. What is your source of information?

From three people within NAUI's HQ. Where do you get the idea that the ONLY reason they did was to make more money?

If you asked my new students whether they wish to have FUN or learn to dive SAFELY, I would be very surprised if 100% did not choose the latter.

My students don't want to make that choice: they want BOTH. You teach your kind, and I will teach the ones who want to have fun AND dive safely.

There may well be a different type of person that is attracted to your type of training. My students have compared the quick courses and have elected for a more extensive program.

Great for you. My students seem to want to avoid your type of attitude and instruction and I frankly can't blame them.

1. I believe they restrict the instructor; which causes them to look for ways around the rules to adequately prepare the student for some diving conditions.

All agencies "restrict" their instructors. That has been demonstrated time and time again. If you don't play by their rules, you get censured.

2. I do not accept "prohibiting" training like rescue and buddy-breathing without reason; only allowing it in some other course down the road.

Great. Don't teach for them.

3. Some people may think that teaching weak and non-swimmers may be fine, but it's an accident waiting to happen in some diving conditions.

I get them all the time, and I don't mind putting in the extra effort to make them strong swimmers. It's just not that hard.

4. Other certification bodies allow and encourage their instructors to exceed the training minimums and add additional content that is reasonably required to keep the diver safe in local conditions. PADI provides a one size fits all solution; which is insufficient for all diving conditions.

That has been proven false as well and by CURRENT PADI instructors. If you must add something for a certain environment (like altitude tables), then it is not only allowed, but required. However, if you violate the standards of any agency, you will be CENSURED just like PADI did with you. You don't get to make the rules but you have to play by them or find an agency who allows you to create your own course.

When safety is compromised for the sake of higher profits, I have a problem with any organization or person doing this; not just when it comes to diver certification.

But it's not. Your continued bashing is without merit.

I believe these to be accurate truthful observations. Rather than throwing insults, perhaps address the content of my statements in a respectful way. I will do likewise.

Saying that you are wrong in continuing to bash an agency is not an insult: it's an accurate and truthful observation.

Dude, since you are so unhappy with all the other agencies and especially so with the one that held you to following it's standards, go make your own agency: DCBCMSI.

Knock yourself out for a few years and then let us come and tell you how you should REALLY be doing things.

My philosophy is to follow the rules laid out by the agencies I certify students under. I think that a prudent philosophy to go by. If I lose confidence in an agency then I simply won't renew my instructor status. It's their loss and not mine.

At that point, as a true professional, I will cease to make any complaints about that agency. If I can't say something positive about them, then I won't say anything at all. You won't catch me bashing another agency, and especially one I left. That would be even more true if they had censured me for not following their rules.