The Philosophy of Diver Training

[Kingpatzer]

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

What would be your solution to instructors interpreting standards in different ways?

Moreover, your leading questions and comments about standards being insufficient have been all in response to posts coming from people speaking on behalf of PADI. You want to have people not think you are attacking PADI, then stop attacking PADI and starting addressing insufficiencies you see in other agencies.

As for being defensive, I am not taking this personally. I am attempting to address the silly and fallacious arguments being furthered by the PADI bashing coalition. Given I don't know any of you in real life, I have little actual care what you think of any particular agency.

I have not ascribed personal motives to you to this point, and would prefer to not do so. But I must wonder, surely you don't want anyone to think you require subtle ad hominem shots further your position?

 

[JeffG]

What would be your solution to instructors interpreting standards in different ways?

Clearer standards and no loop holes. (Shouldn't have X number of solutions to the same problem.)

 

[The Chairman]

What would a PDC certified diver do on a vacation if their PDC took a dump half way through the week?

Flush? I suggest that they would do the same thing if their depth gauge, watch, or SPG went bad: they would try to replace it! However, finding a set of tables ON the dive boat might prove harder than you think. There is a good chance that they would have to figure this one out on their own!

FWIW, I always carry a spare PDC or two when I dive. I have loaned it out twice as people had forgotten theirs. FWIW #2, I also carry redundant regs, masks, can lights and other stuff so I don't have to miss dives. Heck, I carry two primaries as well as three back ups when I enter a cave. Then when someone's primary fails, we can ALL continue the dive. I love the department of redundancy department.

 

[Kingpatzer]

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.

That is false. You have stated your interpretation of what you think you recall that they said. You have not provided direct quotations -- that is you have not repeated their specific words exactly as spoken.

Moreover, given the unlikelihood of you having written down exact words, or recorded them in some faithful fashion, I believe most would be hard pressed to accept any quotation offered by you as valid. And that is not an unreasonable response. Surely you would not accept an attempt by me to recite a statement offered to me 18 years ago as being accurate, would you?

 

[Kingpatzer]

Clearer standards and no loop holes. (Shouldn't have X number of solutions to the same problem.)

Surely you realize that all that does is put the instructor in the position of deciding what is a valid solution, or interpreting one attempt as successful where another would consider it marginal or even failed.

You will not solve the problem with your solution, but you would limited the ability of a good instructor to add value to the course. I'm not sure how stopping good teachers from being effective is a desired outcome. Indeed, it is central to DCBC's point that the PADI standards are already so tight as to create that problem.

 

[The Chairman]

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.

From Wikipedia on Witness Eyewitness testimony is generally presumed to be better than circumstantial evidence. Studies have shown, however, that individual, separate witness testimony is often flawed, and parts of it can be meaningless. This can occur because of a person's faulty observation and recollection, because of a person's bias, or because the witness is lying. If several people witness a crime it is probative to look for similarities in their collective descriptions to substantiate the facts of an event, keeping in mind the contrasts of individual descriptions.

Could you show us these words in WRITING? We have reason(s) to suspect your bias might be showing.

 

[JeffG]

Surely you realize that all that does is put the instructor in the position of deciding what is a valid solution

It shouldn't be their choice.

or interpreting one attempt as successful where another would consider it marginal or even failed.

No getting around that.

You will not solve the problem with your solution, but you would limited the ability of a good instructor to add value to the course.

How many of them are out there compared to the others?

I've said it before...on SB, it seems all the instructors are gods...but everyone whines about the crappy divers. They have to be coming from somewhere. I've given examples about instructors and they have been branded crappy instructors, but they are within standards.

I'm not sure how stopping good teachers from being effective is a desired outcome. Indeed, it is central to DCBC's point that the PADI standards are already so tight as to create that problem.

Tight and low.

make it tight and high. It might be different.

 

[The Chairman]

Tight and low.

What happened to the loop holes? How is it tight and still have loopholes? You complained about Rob wanting it both ways, but you're doing that here.

 

[DCBC]

What would be your solution to instructors interpreting standards in different ways?

Perhaps it is incumbent on the certification agency to spell out what an instructor can and can not do in a very clear manner. For example, ACUC International's Standard states:

"The main characteristics of the Openwater course is that the students that successfully complete the course, will be properly trained and able to dive under conditions equal to (or better) than the environment where the training was conducted, without supervision, accompanied by a diver of any level (Buddy), to the maximum allowable depth for Scuba Diving, which is 40 meters (130 feet)."

Anything that will reasonably affect a diver's safety is expected to be included in the program. It further states that the student "must be able to swim" (prerequisites specified) and basic rescue skills (sub-surface recovers conscious/unconscious diver) must be included in the program. The Instructor must train/test/evaluate on all aspects of the program and retain a written record for a period of seven-years.

This makes it pretty clear. There's no wiggle room on what the "minimum standards" are. The Standards are high, however it's up to the Instructor's judgment what additional training is required. The instructor only certifies the student when s/he is satisfied that the student meets both the Agency's Standards and what they personally believe to be reasonably required. There is no such thing as "must certify."

Regardless of Agency, it's reasonable that it quantify the minimum training required and what additional training that the agency sanctions the Instructor to add. Like someone said, it's not brain surgery and it shouldn't be a well-kept secret.

 

[Kingpatzer]

Perhaps it is incumbent on the certification agency to spell out what an instructor can and can not do in a very clear manner. For example, ACUC International's Standard states: . . .

Are you contending that it is impossible for ACUC instructors to engage in lazy instruction, perform to bare minimums, and perhaps certify students who rightly should be given more instruction?

Or do you recognize that standards can not stop people from being human?