The Philosophy of Diver Training

[Crush]

Not true.

Just looked at the back of all of my C-Cards...not a single one of my instructors was named PADI. (No Patty's or Paddy's either.)

:cool2:

 

[RJP]

Come dive with me in NJ someday...the water's a few degrees warmer than Alberta!

 

[Walter]

The difference to me is that as an educator, my role would be to not only teach the skills and information in the book, but to also influence the student's attitude into believing that my elaborations are just as important as the formal requirements. Sounds a bit naive, perhaps, but it works for me in my real job, no reason why I can't do it in scuba and there is nothing I see in the PADI system that would prevent me from doing it.

It's so much nicer when your agency actually supports you in this.

 

[Kingpatzer]

Adding air to an unconscious diver's BC under water is not always and at all times incorrect.

While that may complicate the ascent as you'd have to now vent two BC's, if the unconscious diver is sufficiently negative and your own BC has insufficient additional lift, then it can necessary to get them closer to neutrally buoyant.

 

[DCBC]

"1. A PADI instructor may not test on any material other than those outlined within the minimum standards;"

Your first point... This idea ventures into the realm of elaborating on a standard compared to exceeding a standard. There is nothing stopping a PADI instructor from having a student remove, replace, and clear a mask a dozen times during an OW course even if the standard only requires him/her to show mastery once. Yes, this is done at the discretion of the instructor, not agency mandated [edit], but also not prohibited by the agency.

What is prohibited, is that the instructor cannot evaluate a student on any skill that is not indicated in the PADI standard.

"2. Once the minimum standards are met, the instructor must certify the student."

Point two... basically a repeat of a previous post I addressed to you. Agencies set their standards. There is no "minimum" about it... there is just the standard. If hypothetical agency X requires their instructors (at their discretion) to teach beyond their stated standards, than what good are their standards in the first place? I know we are infringing on semantics here, and you did make your point about where you are coming from in a previous post, so perhaps I'm just being overly picky about the wording of "minimum standards"... I do that sometimes and I don't wish to belabour the issue.

With PADI you have the standard, which is the only criteria that's required for certification. With other agencies, you have minimum standards which are set by the agency. These minimum standards are not necessarily all that is required for certification, as this is dependent upon the instructor.

I can, however, infer from your posts that you believe PADI's standards are insufficient, especially for the environment in which you dive. In my attempt to find that middle-ground and completely avoid, at all costs, any agency-bashing, I know that I can very easily incorporate my own personal goals into the system established by PADI to teach a student to become that safe, confident, and responsible diver we all hope to certify.

Believe me, I do not hold up any one source of information (an agency Instructor Manual, in this case) with reverence as if it were some sort of all-encompassing fountain of inerrant knowledge.

It is often the case that people will cry agency bashing when someone points out a fact. I know you are not doing this, but to be clear, the discussion is focused on training philosophies. PADI's philosophy is different than any other agency, in-that they place more restrictions on how a student may be taught.

As an example, I'll use buddy breathing. I'm aware that different people have different ideas about this, but with PADI, you are prohibited from teaching this skill. That same level of control is not placed upon instructors from other agencies. What a diver needs to dive safely in a particular area is left to the instructor. In other words, although the basics are required, the instructor can add what s/he thinks is necessary over and above what the agency specifies.

You asked the question "What good are their standards in the first place?" My answer would be that they insure a base-line of knowledge which a warm-water diver who dives in ideal conditions would require. This is not the diving environment in-which all instruction takes place. So what does the agency do about the differences? They trust their instructors to teach what is required. PADI does not.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Adding air to an unconscious diver's BC under water is not always and at all times incorrect.

This part is true ... depending on the diver's gear you might have to add air to their BCD to initiate the ascent. This would be the case if the diver is overweighted, is much larger than you, or is wearing a heavy wetsuit and is at sufficient depth that it has compressed.

Once the ascent begins, venting air becomes the priority. The goal would be to maintain the unconscious diver slightly positive and yourself slightly negative, such that the two of you are roughly neutral and so that you are able to swim the diver to the surface in a controlled fashion.

While that may complicate the ascent as you'd have to now vent two BC's, if the unconscious diver is sufficiently negative and your own BC has insufficient additional lift, then it can necessary to get them closer to neutrally buoyant.

This statement suggests to me that you are using your own BCD to control the ascent ... that isn't a good method. What would happen to the victim if, for some reason, you had to disengage? The last thing you want is for that person to sink back to the bottom.

Furthermore, additional lift shouldn't be an issue ... you don't really need lift to bring an unconscious diver to the surface. The idea is to maintain yourself close to neutral buoyancy and swim the diver to the surface.

Prior to the rescue attempt you should vent ALL of the air from your BCD and if you are using a drysuit you want to squeeze as much air from it as possible as well. Use the victim's BCD to control the ascent rate for both of you. Sure, you may have to vent some additional air from your own as you ascend ... depending on the depth you started from ... but you will be minimizing the need to manage two BCDs on the ascent. If you are wearing a drysuit, make sure the dump valve is opened ... you will be ascending in a vertical position as you swim the victim to the surface, and with the dump valve opened the expanding air in your drysuit will vent itself as you ascend.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Crush]

Adding air to an unconscious diver's BC under water is not always and at all times incorrect.

Nothing is always and at all times correct.

Once the ascent begins, venting air becomes the priority. The goal would be to maintain the unconscious diver slightly positive and yourself slightly negative, such that the two of you are roughly neutral and so that you are able to swim the diver to the surface in a controlled fashion.

NWGratefulDiver is correct. I didn't go into all the details as I did not think that, in the space of a few paragraphs, I could teach what has become too complicated for PADI to include in their basic OW course. FWIW, I try to practice this controlled ascent with my dive buddy, and both of us dive dry.

 

[schaffld]

What is prohibited, is that the instructor cannot evaluate a student on any skill that is not indicated in the PADI standard.

What is prohibited is witholding a certification if they've successfully completed all the skills. There is nothing stopping me from making my own evaluations of standards that I wish to elaborate on. It's my responsibility to impress upon the student the importance of what I am trying to accomplish with them by working a little outside the box, but still within the PADI system. For example... I can teach mask removal and replacing with the student kneeling on the bottom... I can teach hovering.... those are the PADI standards. After they've shown me mastery of those skills, it's perfectly acceptable for me to then informally evaluate them on mask removal and replacing while hovering. Yes, I've conceded that I can't formally evaluate them on this or withhold a certification if they can't perform it, but, I feel, it falls on my shoulders to influence the student in such away that makes them realize how important it is for them to be able to perform that skill.

With PADI you have the standard, which is the only criteria that's required for certification. With other agencies, you have minimum standards which are set by the agency. These minimum standards are not necessarily all that is required for certification, as this is dependent upon the instructor.

I'm not familiar with every agency's system. In the system under which you teach, does the agency provide you with a supplemental list of standards from which you can choose to apply to your local conditions (for example, a list of standards to teach for cold water, or low visibility)? Or, are the standards that you add to your course to suit your local area chosen individually by each instructor? In either case, you are relying on the professionalism of the instructor to supplement the standards sufficiently and fairly. A less than enthusiastic instructor can still certify a student with only the agency's minimum standards.

It is often the case that people will cry agency bashing when someone points out a fact. I know you are not doing this, but to be clear, the discussion is focused on training philosophies. PADI's philosophy is different than any other agency, in-that they place more restrictions on how a student may be taught.

As an example, I'll use buddy breathing. I'm aware that different people have different ideas about this, but with PADI, you are prohibited from teaching this skill. That same level of control is not placed upon instructors from other agencies. What a diver needs to dive safely in a particular area is left to the instructor. In other words, although the basics are required, the instructor can add what s/he thinks is necessary over and above what the agency specifies.

You asked the question "What good are their standards in the first place?" My answer would be that they insure a base-line of knowledge which a warm-water diver who dives in ideal conditions would require. This is not the diving environment in-which all instruction takes place. So what does the agency do about the differences? They trust their instructors to teach what is required. PADI does not.

I wrote in a previous post that there are enough shades of grey written into the PADI instructor manual that allow for prudent instructor judgment and elaboration of standards. No, they are very clear about not exceeding standards and you do have to work within those limits (if you want to call those restrictions, I can't disagree with you). On the other hand, just because an agency "trusts" its instructors to add appropriate standards certainly doesn't guarantee they are actually going to do it. This is getting into that instructor vs. agency debate again, which, along with buddy-breathing, split-fins, and retractors, has been debated ad nauseum in here.. Nevertheless, in either system, the professionalism of the instructor and his/her skills as an educator are paramount in the process of training safe, responsible, and confident divers.

There is no reason for me to doubt that what you add to your course is more than adequate to instruct a student to dive in the conditions where you teach, but there is no guarantee that another instructor with your agency is as equally dedicated. Any teaching system or philosophy (PADI or otherwise) has its shortcomings. Whether it's a system that is deemed to be too restrictive on its instructors, or one that is deemed to be overly dependent on them.

For the record, my experience in teaching diving is very limited. At the moment I'm a DM and I've only helped out in classes. I may find the reality of the situation much different when I actually start teaching. However, I'm applying what I've learned from nearly two decades in the health care field where standards, policies, procedures, and guidelines are constantly being introduced, for a while, I was one of the sorry folks producing them. Of course, I see the need for them, but I also believe that the quest for that ideal, all-encompassing, and universal system of standards is essentially futile. I've worked under systems that range from the strict and regimented "you will follow every single standard to the letter" system to the "do whatever you want, just don't screw up" system and just about everything in between. Fortunately, professionalism, sound judgment, and common sense usually prevail and goals are achieved.

Thanks again for your comments and keeping this all civil. I greatly appreciate the interaction. Cheers.

 

[Thalassamania]

What is prohibited is witholding a certification if they've successfully completed all the skills. There is nothing stopping me from making my own evaluations of standards that I wish to elaborate on. It's my responsibility to impress upon the student the importance of what I am trying to accomplish with them by working a little outside the box, but still within the PADI system. For example... I can teach mask removal and replacing with the student kneeling on the bottom... I can teach hovering.... those are the PADI standards. After they've shown me mastery of those skills, it's perfectly acceptable for me to then informally evaluate them on mask removal and replacing while hovering. Yes, I've conceded that I can't formally evaluate them on this or withhold a certification if they can't perform it, but, I feel, it falls on my shoulders to influence the student in such away that makes them realize how important it is for them to be able to perform that skill.

That's great ... for your students. But the reality of the dive industry is that a great many people are trained in resort areas where the instructional staff are put under great time stress and required to crank out as many students as possible in as short a time as possible ... if it is not required by the standards, it just is not done.

I'm not familiar with every agency's system. In the system under which you teach, does the agency provide you with a supplemental list of standards from which you can choose to apply to your local conditions (for example, a list of standards to teach for cold water, or low visibility)? Or, are the standards that you add to your course to suit your local area chosen individually by each instructor?

Ther are chosen individually by each instructor.

In either case, you are relying on the professionalism of the instructor to supplement the standards sufficiently and fairly. A less than enthusiastic instructor can still certify a student with only the agency's minimum standards.

While that is correct, that is (at lest in my observation) rarely the problem. Even if all agency standards are met, a course that does not meet the standard of practice of the local diving instructional community creates significant liability problems for the, "less than enthusiastic instructor."

I wrote in a previous post that there are enough shades of grey written into the PADI instructor manual that allow for prudent instructor judgment and elaboration of standards.

There we disagree, both practically and philosophically. I just can't see the sense in bring forced to sea lawyer ones' way through standards to come up with an adequate course.

No, they are very clear about not exceeding standards and you do have to work within those limits (if you want to call those restrictions, I can't disagree with you). On the other hand, just because an agency "trusts" its instructors to add appropriate standards certainly doesn't guarantee they are actually going to do it.

What "guarantees" that is the quality (and yes, the difficulty) of the instructor training and qualification program. These topics need to be discussed, resolved and tested.

This is getting into that instructor vs. agency debate again, which, along with buddy-breathing, split-fins, and retractors, has been debated ad nauseum in here.. Nevertheless, in either system, the professionalism of the instructor and his/her skills as an educator are paramount in the process of training safe, responsible, and confident divers.

You may see it as a question of Instructor vs. Agency, or even Agency vs. Agency ... I don't. I think that the very concept of professionalism rests on possessing academic freedom that permits one to teach exactly what is felt to be needed in exactly the way in which it needs to be taught. With that freedom the instructor has no professionalism and can hardly be termed an educator. Sure, that means that the instructor must be more highly trained ... and that sticks in the craw of the large segment of the industry that has gone down the fastbuck path, but that wants to masquerade as professionals and educators.

There is no reason for me to doubt that what you add to your course is more than adequate to instruct a student to dive in the conditions where you teach, but there is no guarantee that another instructor with your agency is as equally dedicated. Any teaching system or philosophy (PADI or otherwise) has its shortcomings. Whether it's a system that is deemed to be too restrictive on its instructors, or one that is deemed to be overly dependent on them.

The guarantee is in the instrutor training and qualification regimen.

For the record, my experience in teaching diving is very limited. At the moment I'm a DM and I've only helped out in classes. I may find the reality of the situation much different when I actually start teaching.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that you will find the reality much different because it is unlikely that you will be exposed to anything that is significantly different from what you have already seen. It is the old problem of asking a blind man to describe the color red.

However, I'm applying what I've learned from nearly two decades in the health care field where standards, policies, procedures, and guidelines are constantly being introduced, for a while, I was one of the sorry folks producing them. Of course, I see the need for them, but I also believe that the quest for that ideal, all-encompassing, and universal system of standards is essentially futile. I've worked under systems that range from the strict and regimented "you will follow every single standard to the letter" system to the "do whatever you want, just don't screw up" system and just about everything in between. Fortunately, professionalism, sound judgment, and common sense usually prevail and goals are achieved.

Then you understand why a Health Aide can not do the things an LPN can do, and and LPN can do do the things an RN can do, can so on thorough the various PAs and MDs. It all has to do with the level of training and qualification. There is this mistaken concept that all instructors are the same, that they are all trained the same way, that they all have the same ability. Years ago this was very much not true, even within a single agency, there was a recognized difference between various instructor programs. Standardization has narrowed that gap, both inter-agency and intra-agency and we have seen a great deal of regression to the mean, which has increased the quality of the worst at the cost of diminishing the quality of the best. I, for one, refuse to play that game.

 

[DCBC]

What is prohibited is witholding a certification if they've successfully completed all the skills. There is nothing stopping me from making my own evaluations of standards that I wish to elaborate on. It's my responsibility to impress upon the student the importance of what I am trying to accomplish with them by working a little outside the box, but still within the PADI system. For example... I can teach mask removal and replacing with the student kneeling on the bottom... I can teach hovering.... those are the PADI standards. After they've shown me mastery of those skills, it's perfectly acceptable for me to then informally evaluate them on mask removal and replacing while hovering. Yes, I've conceded that I can't formally evaluate them on this or withhold a certification if they can't perform it, but, I feel, it falls on my shoulders to influence the student in such away that makes them realize how important it is for them to be able to perform that skill.

I think the examples you are using are not really outside of the box. Lets say you live in an area that has extremely high tides. Your experience indicates to you that because of the currents, the divers have to have increased in-water ability. You prefer to raise the bar on in-water assessment and insist that everyone fully understand tide tables, as this is crucial to diver safety.

One of your students cannot swim, but can drown-proof and can marginally use fins mask and snorkel sufficiently to pass the in-water evaluation. Although they pass PADI minimum standards, they do not meet yours. They marginally complete the open-water, but they just don't understand the tide tables. You say they need more work before they are certified. As they were looking forward to diving that week with a friend visiting from out of state, they complain to PADI. You have no other alternative but to issue a certification.

I'm not familiar with every agency's system. In the system under which you teach, does the agency provide you with a supplemental list of standards from which you can choose to apply to your local conditions (for example, a list of standards to teach for cold water, or low visibility)? Or, are the standards that you add to your course to suit your local area chosen individually by each instructor? In either case, you are relying on the professionalism of the instructor to supplement the standards sufficiently and fairly. A less than enthusiastic instructor can still certify a student with only the agency's minimum standards.

The standards required by each instructor is solely dependent upon that instructor. You are correct that an instructor can teach to the minimums and not add anything past this. I see the difference as my agency actively encourages instructors to meet and then exceed the standards. They also mandate whatever additional training be undertaken prior to certification to insure safety in-light of the diving training environment. In any case, the instructor has a moral and ethical responsibility (and possibly a legal one) to prepare the student accordingly.

I wrote in a previous post that there are enough shades of grey written into the PADI instructor manual that allow for prudent instructor judgment and elaboration of standards. No, they are very clear about not exceeding standards and you do have to work within those limits (if you want to call those restrictions, I can't disagree with you). On the other hand, just because an agency "trusts" its instructors to add appropriate standards certainly doesn't guarantee they are actually going to do it. This is getting into that instructor vs. agency debate again, which, along with buddy-breathing, split-fins, and retractors, has been debated ad nauseum in here.. Nevertheless, in either system, the professionalism of the instructor and his/her skills as an educator are paramount in the process of training safe, responsible, and confident divers.

Most instructors from all organizations I've talked with over the years, want what's best for their students. The difference is the degree to which one instructor is empowered by their organization over another. With PADI, I must certify when the agencies minimums are met. With my agency, I must meet the agencies minimums, but only certify when I'm convinced in the competence of the student.

Can you not envision a situation where PADI minimums are insufficient? The major difference is PADI insists upon certification ALWAYS upon meeting the minimums. If the minimums are insufficient to meet the needs of local diving, why would any organization insist that a non-qualified diver be certified? To me, this doesn't make any sense. Where is the moral and ethical position? Where is the professionalism?

There is no reason for me to doubt that what you add to your course is more than adequate to instruct a student to dive in the conditions where you teach, but there is no guarantee that another instructor with your agency is as equally dedicated. Any teaching system or philosophy (PADI or otherwise) has its shortcomings. Whether it's a system that is deemed to be too restrictive on its instructors, or one that is deemed to be overly dependent on them.

Both organizations have minimum standards to meet. PADI stops here. Other organizations advise the instructor that these minimums may not be sufficient to meet the local diving requirements and the instructor is expected to train the diver to dive safely within the environment where he is being trained. If I didn't teach students over and above the minimums, I would be in conflict with my agencies instructor ethics provision. I must teach what is required. Again I would suspect that there may be legal action against me, if I knowingly didn't pass on the requisite knowledge and skill-sets required.

For the record, my experience in teaching diving is very limited. At the moment I'm a DM and I've only helped out in classes. I may find the reality of the situation much different when I actually start teaching. However, I'm applying what I've learned from nearly two decades in the health care field where standards, policies, procedures, and guidelines are constantly being introduced, for a while, I was one of the sorry folks producing them. Of course, I see the need for them, but I also believe that the quest for that ideal, all-encompassing, and universal system of standards is essentially futile. I've worked under systems that range from the strict and regimented "you will follow every single standard to the letter" system to the "do whatever you want, just don't screw up" system and just about everything in between. Fortunately, professionalism, sound judgment, and common sense usually prevail and goals are achieved.

Thanks again for your comments and keeping this all civil. I greatly appreciate the interaction. Cheers.

I appreciate yours as well.