The Philosophy of Diver Training

[Walter]

The agencies, PADI in particular, have made diving much more accessible, more mainstream.

I disagree. All they've done is make the class faster.

 

[DCBC]

DCBC, I am not disagreeing with this assessment, but I am seeking clarification. The nearest true LDS to me (not including a "shop" sun out of someone's basement in my city) seems to be run by well-meaning, extremely hard-working people. From my outsider's perspective they seem to just be able to make ends meet. They are a NAUI shop. If they were to be able to increase their revenues by 300% by becoming a PADI shop, I think that they would jump at the prospect. Would they truly realize a marked improvement in revenue, or would the increased cash flow be eaten up by membership feed to PADI?

PS - I don't want to draw you into saying something that will make you liable.

Some may feel that PADI has an "enforced low standard," as they prohibit their instructors from either adding to it, or increasing the requirements for certification. On the other hand, NAUI may have a low "minimum standard," in-which they encourage their instructors to teach beyond the minimums. Should the instructor not choose to do so, the result may be that the diver is not properly prepared for the diving conditions. In other words, either agency may not be successful.

One major difference that seems to be apparent is that one prohibits making the course more comprehensive, the other agency allows it as an option left to the instructor running the program. This is why you see people on SB saying that: It's the Instructor NOT the Agency. This is largely more applicable for instructors whose agencies allow them to make the course more comprehensive.

In the NAUI shop you describe, it might come down to what the individual instructors feel is necessary to prepare a diver to dive safely in local conditions. If they insist on teaching entry-level divers: sub-surface rescue, require increased in-water ability, buddy-breathing and other skill-sets, they can't teach through PADI. They would have to reject their personal feelings on the matter, teach what PADI wants them to teach and in the sequence that PADI prescribes. If freedom of instruction means more to them, they may reject PADI's training philosophy for the same reason that I did. If however money is the only motivator, they would be best to go with PADI for the reasons outlined.

This is why PADI is so popular. It's focus is on making money, which is attractive to many dive shops. My problem when I owned an LDS and had a PADI Training Facility, was that I didn't feel I could prepare divers properly for the local conditions under the PADI system. This didn't however, seem to bother my competitors.

As I've discussed already, I am no longer a PADI Instructor. During the 17 years that I was an instructor with PADI, they had the lowest standards in the industry. I doubt much has changed in this regard. To certify a diver with ACUC, it required a 42 hour program, while PADI at that time required 27 hours. To the diving public, it was hard to substantiate why I was asking $300 for an ACUC course, when someone could pay my competition $199 to become certified with PADI (they added the cost of book and certification to this price, so the difference wasn't as much as it seemed). It's an unfair comparison. This has resulted in most training agencies lowering their standards to be competitive.

So as an instructor it comes down to is how much training are you comfortable with before you hand them a card. Certainly diving conditions are a big variable.

 

[DCBC]

I disagree. All they've done is make the class faster.

I'm not sure I agree Walter. PADI has made diving as a business more attractive because they have a well thought out plan how to capitalize on the process. Cheaper, faster, easier (lower standards) equates to a larger market size. I think a number of divers today would not have gone into diving at all because they were poor/non-swimmers, or simply didn't have the time and dedication which would have been necessary.

I believe PADI's low standards are responsible for much of the success that the industry has enjoyed. The larger market has enticed more diving equipment companies to get involved and improve the technology. They are also largely responsible for the low level of competence of the average diver today, lowering the level of education in-favor of profit.

 

[Walter]

I think a number of divers today would not have gone into diving at all because they were poor/non-swimmers, or simply didn't have the time and dedication which would have been necessary.

There is a big difference between refusing to schedule time to learn to dive and not having an opportunity to learn being available. Did PADI put out a class that a great deal more people were willing to take? Yes. Did they make it more available? No. Those are two different concepts.

 

[DCBC]

There is a big difference between refusing to schedule time to learn to dive and not having an opportunity to learn being available. Did PADI put out a class that a great deal more people were willing to take? Yes. Did they make it more available? No. Those are two different concepts.

I understand what you're saying Walter, but the argument goes that PADI (like it or not) has transformed the landscape of diving world-wide. They made it more available by increasing the market size, which in-turn created more PADI instructors and dive shops that allowed people greater access to diver training.

Access equates to availability in my book. Do you not think that diving is more available than it would be if every PADI instructor and affiliated dive shop closed its doors? They have captured over 80% of the market; much of which wouldn't even be here without them.

I don't personally accept their methods as satisfactory, but I have to acknowledge their accomplishments.

 

[Walter]

I acknowledge their accomplishments as well. Expanding diving? Yes. Increasing access? No, unless you mean giving access to non-swimmers. In that case, I would agree. The numbers of non-swimmers who are diving are probably fairly small. But other than non-swimmers, there are very few people diving today that would not have been able to dive without PADI. There are probably a great many who wouldn't be diving without PADI, but that does not mean they wouldn't have access. It merely means they wouldn't have availed themselves of that access.

 

[DCBC]

I acknowledge their accomplishments as well. Expanding diving? Yes. Increasing access? No, unless you mean giving access to non-swimmers. In that case, I would agree. The numbers of non-swimmers who are diving are probably fairly small. But other than non-swimmers, there are very few people diving today that would not have been able to dive without PADI. There are probably a great many who wouldn't be diving without PADI, but that does not mean they wouldn't have access. It merely means they wouldn't have availed themselves of that access.

PADI's expansion into numerous countries have allowed people access to diving instruction where no other certification agency was even operating. How many countries are exclusively serviced by PADI? How can you say that PADI hasn't increased access to diver training?

 

[diverrex]

So as an instructor it comes down to is how much training are you comfortable with before you hand them a card. Certainly diving conditions are a big variable.

I am not the expert in this subject that many of you are. I am not a PADI supporter nor a basher. I'll admit to being PADI trained. To me that quote above is one of the biggest issues in this subject, the variabilty in conditions and the difficulty in having one program with the same instruction try to develop divers for those various conditions. The comprehensive programs probably do accomplish that. The PADI program I think is fine for warm, clear water divers led around by a competent quide/DM/instructor (and if in small groups). But it's not enough for cold water, low viz, current and chop difficult conditions. Luckily most of us trained in the minimal way find experienced mentors to quide us until we ourselves become competent enough for those conditions.

While the PADI training program throws in that qualifer about "similar conditions that you were trained in" I could easily see having two completely different certifications, one for easy warm clear water shallow diving with a quide and another for independent challenging conditions diving.

 

[DCBC]

...I'll admit to being PADI trained. To me that quote above is one of the biggest issues in this subject, the variabilty in conditions and the difficulty in having one program with the same instruction try to develop divers for those various conditions. The comprehensive programs probably do accomplish that. The PADI program I think is fine for warm, clear water divers led around by a competent quide/DM/instructor (and if in small groups). But it's not enough for cold water, low viz, current and chop difficult conditions. Luckily most of us trained in the minimal way find experienced mentors to quide us until we ourselves become competent enough for those conditions.

While the PADI training program throws in that qualifer about "similar conditions that you were trained in" I could easily see having two completely different certifications, one for easy warm clear water shallow diving with a quide and another for independent challenging conditions diving.

I agree with you; the diver certification bodies should acknowledge that there is a difference between diving in warm clear water and in more challenging conditions. It's reasonable that they insure that their standards reflect the requisite knowledge and skill-sets that are required to ensure diver safety.

If the minimum standards were higher, the LDS would have no choice but to deliver training to this new minimum level (at least where conditions would warrant the change). This would eliminate the frustration that some instructors feel while teaching at a location that punches out divers quickly. It would likely result in more competent and confident divers overall. I can't see how this wouldn't be a win-win for the industry.

 

[drrich2]

Should there be an 'adverse conditions' specialty of some sort, focused on rough shore entries with poor vis. in the shallows due to sandy turbulence, sites strongly impacted by tides and such?

This would not obstruct people from getting their OW cert. & C card & being able to get tanks fills and such, and dive in good conditions, yet would offer a clear path to further training to handle adverse conditions local to some areas?

By comparison, I perceive a level of scorn directed to reliance on dive masters on tropical dive boat excursions (at least, that's the sense I get from terms like 'baby sitters' and 'vacation divers'), yet there is a specialty certification in Navigation for people who wish to pursue that & improve their independence.

Seems that approach could be used more broadly.

Richard.

P.S.: Apologies in advance if I've recycled ideas already voiced; I've been checking this thread off & on over time, but at 118 pages, no way do I recall it all!