The Philosophy of Diver Training

[hg frogman]

From the example of the French diving scene, which does produce independent divers, I guess there is a mutual interaction :

- French full training up to rescue-deep-deco diver (CMAS***) aims at producing divers really independent. Entry-level standard (CMAS*) is lower than PADI OW standard, and the CMAS* divers are not allowed to dive independently, they must be guided with a 1:4 ratio. The standards are set quite high after the entry-level, with a hard step between CMAS* and CMAS** levels. The students, at all levels, are pushed towards improvement with independent diving as a goal. As an incentive, there is much more to see in French waters if one is more than entry-level certified. And, within a dive operation, independent diving is significantly less expensive than guided diving.

- Soon in the career of the French people diving in France (ie as soon as they are certified CMAS**) they can and do dive really independently, and independent diving (no guide, at least underwater) is the mainstream practice amongst many French dive operations. As I said already, the majority of the Frenchies don't like much being guided (as far as I can see).

 

[Kingpatzer]

Everything you have posted leaves such huge gaps that there is no consistency could ever be maintained.

If true, this differs from agencies that let instructors set their own standards how?

However, I don't agree with you. The standard is to be able to safely plan a dive. You seem to believe that the method to do that is more important than the ability to do it. However, that is a ludicrous position.

A physiologist can come along and declare that tables might have printing errors, the only way to properly plan a dive is to derive the values by hand starting from the base formulas. That is using precisely the same logic as the people claiming that tables are superior to computers.

But then someone else can come along and state that there might be transcription errors in the formulas, so one must go out and derive the formula from the theory to make sure the formulas are sound. Again, it uses precisely the same logic.

And then, of course, it would be noted that the theory may not be sound, and one should re-do the experiments from which the theory arose, for only then can one be certain of the result and fully understand what the computer is saying.

 

[The Chairman]

Standards are a means to have a consistent program that create a predictable outcome.

After all is said and done, they should be able to dive safely in conditions as good as or better than the ones they trained in, using equipment that is similar or the same. If you learned on tables: dive with tables. If you learned on a PDC: dive with a PDC. If you learned on an abacus utilizing a sundial: dive with an abacus and a sundial. If you want to dive with something different later on, the onus is on you to learn it or to get help in learning it.

 

[Walter]

If the statements came from standards from when DCBC taught, and by his own words that was 18 years ago, then the applicability to today is near nil due to extensive changes in the culture and emotional climate for the current generations.

While there have been minor changes, they aren't all that much different today with the exception of making swimming an optional skill. Around 2000, they allowed a 300 yd snorkeling option or the historical 200 yd swim.

 

[JeffG]

However, I don't agree with you. The standard is to be able to safely plan a dive. You seem to believe that the method to do that is more important than the ability to do it. However, that is a ludicrous position.

More important? Nope. I think you missed my point. I will try to rephrase.

That there are mechanisms in the current Standards to "raise the bar" to the height the instructor see's fit.

The problem is that is can go either direction. Up or down.

For some instructors, this could lead to using the path of least resistance and creating students that are more dependent than others.

Its all well and good that the instructors posting in this thread, use the "wiggle" room to create a better experience for their students.

But another way to approach this problem...Is to eliminate the "wriggle" room and make the standards a little bit more stringent.

Thats it in a nut shell.

edit: And for our homework kiddies....whats the %'d of each group: Raisers..or lowerers of the bar??

 

[TechBlue]

After all is said and done, they should be able to dive safely in conditions as good as or better than the ones they trained in, using equipment that is similar or the same. If you learned on tables: dive with tables. If you learned on a PDC: dive with a PDC. If you learned on an abacus utilizing a sundial: dive with an abacus and a sundial. If you want to dive with something different later on, the onus is on you to learn it or to get help in learning it.

What would a PDC certified diver do on a vacation if their PDC took a dump half way through the week? They may have been doing easy 2 dives a day or liveaboard 5 dives a day, would they even know where to begin using dive tables? Chances are they would even have to use somebody elses log book for a start.

 

[Kingpatzer]

But another way to approach this problem...Is to eliminate the "wriggle" room and make the standards a little bit more stringent.

Thats it in a nut shell.

So we have half of the PADI bashers arguing that the standards are too lose and the other half arguing that the standards don't all the instructors enough freedom.

Nice attempt at a catch-22.

However, every agency ultimately comes down to if the person doing the certifying signs off or not.

Or are you actually trying to contend that an SEI instructor or NAUI instructor or any other agency's instructor is kept from being lazy and irresponsible by the agency standards?

 

[Kingpatzer]

What would a PDC certified diver do on a vacation if their PDC took a dump half way through the week? They may have been doing easy 2 dives a day or liveaboard 5 dives a day, would they even know where to begin using dive tables? Chances are they would even have to use somebody elses log book for a start.

What happens if their mask breaks. If they have another they keep diving. If they don't, they either buy one at the next port, borrow someone else's, or don't dive.

What happens if a bcd springs a leak?
What happens if they lose a fin?
What happens if their regulator breaks?

Really, addressing a failed computer is going to be a lot easier than quite a few other potential problems.

 

[JeffG]

So we have half of the PADI bashers arguing that the standards are too lose and the other half arguing that the standards don't all the instructors enough freedom.

Nice attempt at a catch-22.

However, every agency ultimately comes down to if the person doing the certifying signs off or not.

Or are you actually trying to contend that an SEI instructor or NAUI instructor or any other agency's instructor is kept from being lazy and irresponsible by the agency standards?

Who says we were just talking about PADI? We were using it as an example because most like NetDoc says...they are the biggest (and the one most are familiar with), but if the shoe fits for all...then it does.

Stop being defensive and thinking we are all out to get PADI. Things might go better.

 

[DCBC]

DCBC is making some pretty absolute statements. Above, you say that it "seemed pretty clear that they came from . . ."

1 -- I am not clear where anything he says come from; there is nothing cited, and therefore it is opinion, or hearsay.

Evidence given from what an individual perceives from their senses directly is not hearsay, rather real evidence by definition. Again by definition, my statements have been cited, i.e. "To quote; to repeat, as a passage from a book, or the words of another." I have repeated the words of PADI HQ.

2 -- If the statements came from standards from when DCBC taught, and by his own words that was 18 years ago, then the applicability to today is near nil due to extensive changes in the culture and emotional climate for the current generations.

That is yet to be determined. Several statutes, policies and accepted procedures in our Society are much older than 18 years. They stay in-affect until they are repealed or modified, regardless of emotional climate. I have requested an update of this information.

3 -- The full basis of the opinion is post hoc ergo propter hoc, where the quality of the diver is blamed completely on the agencies and current culture and climate are simply dismissed. An analogy may be made to the current education system and its endless debates over "it's the systems' fault" instead of seeing the steady decline being a combination of factors.

We are not talking about a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation. "Standards of Operation" in this case, are what they are. These may be interpreted differently by Society over time. This is analogous to law. The application (case law) may change with the emotional climate. My statements are not what is, rather what was. I have asked clarification of the former.