The Philosophy of Diver Training

[boulderjohn]

Imagine what has changed since DCBC quit PADI.

If he quit 18 years ago, then that was roughly 1992.

When I did my instructor training, we were required to read the old Undersea Journal articles that described the changes being made to PADI's approach to dive instruction. They were from the mid 1990s. I paid special attention to several in particular because I noted that when they were printed, I was then employed as a staff developer for one of the nation's largest school districts. My job then was to try to teach teachers about the recent research on student learning and how it should impact instructional decision making. I was surprised to see PADI referencing some of the same research and promoting the same changes.

I would say there has been quite a bit of change since then.

 

[Diver0001]

1. No PADI Instructor may test (use the term evaluate if this helps you understand the intent of the word "test") on anything outside of the PADI Standards to determine if a diver may be certified.

We've covered this already. You confuse "test" with "train". What you want people to believe is that PADI instructors are unable in any way to deep-out the material. That's false.

2. If a Student meets the knowledge and skill-sets outlined within PADI Standards, s/he must be certified.

You're once again deliberately leaving out the key detail which is that you must issue them a card WHEN THE COURSE IS FINISHED. You want people to think that PADI instructors are forced by standards to certify inadequately trained divers, which is false.

3. A PADI Instructor who teaches outside of PADI Standards is not covered by PADI liability insurance for anything added to the PADI Standards.

Here again you leave out key details by confusing deeping out the material with adding irrelvant material. You want people to believe that PADI instructors are unable to teach what is necessary to thier students, which is false.

Note: I am no longer calling them lies. But they are still 1/2 truths, misdirections, deliberate misinformation and in my view continued cynical attempts to argue a PADI bashing agenda.

Now I've stated that I am no longer a PADI Instructor.

Only after being exposed and corrected on your repeated assertions that you ARE a PADI instructor, which also turns out to be false. You are an ex-PADI instructor who hasn't taught a PADI course for (I think we determined) at least 18 years

I have outlined my experience with PADI and the direct conversations that I've had with PADI HQ. I have been called a liar and a coward for outlining these.

No you were not. You were confronted about repeated use of 1/2 truths and posting inaccurate, deliberately misleading information in an attempt to discredit PADI.

Rather than continuing to insult me, perhaps you can make your case, rather than just saying I'm telling half-truths, etc. Don't attack me thinking that your somehow justified.

Nobody is attacking YOU. but you *are* and will continue to be confronted about your PADI bashing for as long as you refuse to stop using 1/2 truths and deliberate misinformation to discredit them. If you want to discuss things that you feel they can do better, then go ahead.

1. If a PADI Instructor added rescue to his OW program, would he be covered by PADI Insurance, or would he be in contravention of PADI Standards?

2. How about teaching altitude or tide tables as a mandatory tested requirement for PADI OW certification? Can this be done or not?

3. Can a PADI Instructor teach, test/evaluate and require proven competence in buddy breathing as a requirement for OW certification? Is the Instructor covered by liability insurance if he chooses to teach this? Is he in breach of PADI Standards? What other things can he add to the PADI program that are not an embellishment of PADI Standards?

These things were covered in my previous post. There is nothing more to be gained by allowing this to go around in circles over and over again. Your agenda is clear and you are welcome to continue to try bashing PADI with everything you've got.

But be prepared to be continually confronted about it too.

attempting to hang the messenger.

No need to play the woe-is-me card. You're not the victim here. You are simply being confronted about 1/2 truths and deliberate attempts to discredit an agency based on misinformation.

R..

 

[Thalassamania]

... We are however attacking your beliefs that somehow PADI's program is

• Only about Profit
• Puts divers at risk
• Is sub-standard

...

Would you consider these statements fair?

• PADI is at least as concerned with profit, as they are with diver safety.
• PADI training, when compared to more complete courses, puts divers at risk.
• PADI training, when compared to more complete courses, is sub-standard.

 

[Kingpatzer]

Would you consider these statements fair?

• PADI is at least as concerned with profit, as they are with diver safety.

No. What would be fair is to state that one of the things PADI is concerned about is profit.
To contend that it is equal in their decision making to the profit motive, is to imply that PADI as an organization is willing to trade safety for money indiscriminately.

• PADI training, when compared to more complete courses, puts divers at risk.

No.

• PADI training, when compared to more complete courses, is sub-standard.

No.

 

[Diver0001]

Does it say that? (In the standards?)

PADI being how it is would never use the word "fail" LOL

You are required to issue them a card if they have completed the performance requirements for all skills and theory for all confined and open water modules.

But you are under no obligation to certify them if they're not ready. The distinction is this:

In order to progress from mod-1 to mod-2 a PADI instructor must first ensure that the students perform all performance requirements from mod-1 to the bar of "mastery" (repeatable, fluid, error-free). If they don't then you can't let them progress. If they do then you can let them progress. If the do this from one module to the next all the way through you course then when you complete the last OW dive successfully you must issue the card.

At any time during the training the instructor and/or the student can halt the training. Progress is registered on a form called a referral form and the student gets that. They can then pick up the training where they left off at any point in the next year. After that they have to start over.

R..

 

[boulderjohn]

Would you consider these statements fair?

• PADI training, when compared to more complete courses, is sub-standard.

What is the standard?

If you are saying that a course that teaches more is the standard, then a course that teaches less than that course will be sub-standard.

Another way of saying that is that any course that teaches less than another course that teaches more is teaching less. Welcome to the wonderful world of tautology!

The issue is whether that additional training is necessary. The most complete and thorough driver training course for new drivers will not prepare students to drive in the Daytona 500. That does not make the course substandard for its purposes.

You have said repeatedly, for example, that new OW divers should be able to tie a bowline with one hand while wearing three fingered mittens or dry gloves, and your course provides that training. If that is your standard, then any course that does not prove that instruction is substandard.

 

[Teamcasa]

Would you consider these statements fair?

• PADI is at least as concerned with profit, as they are with diver safety.
• PADI training, when compared to more complete courses, puts divers at risk.
• PADI training, when compared to more complete courses, is sub-standard.

I'm kinda late to this party but after reading through the thread, warts and all, one thing is clear PADI has it's detractors and it's fans.

As a business, PADI needs to be profitable but not unlike any other business where training and certification is involved, the reduction of risk or more importantly, protection against litigation is the top dog in this fight.

PADI (and any other business) must balance profit vs member safety and establish a defensible position in order to survive. While I do feel that many of the specialty classes offered are kind of silly, no one is holding a gun to anyones head to take them.

As for the OW or other basic courses, most of the instructors I know take teaching new divers and their safety very seriously, regardless of the agency. To say the class design alone puts people at risk is to say the instructor does so as well and clearly, that's not the case with the instructors I know.

In addition, it is hard to separate the agency from the instructor when it comes to teaching a course. Again, the instructors I know that currently teach OW insure not only the competence of the graduates but they also instill into their eager charges that while they now can rent air and buy gear, they need to continue to learn and practice in order to become a fully competent diver.

 

[The Chairman]

What is the standard?

If you are saying that a course that teaches more is the standard, then a course that teaches less than that course will be sub-standard.

The logical source for a "standard course" would be (horrors) the RSTC.

There is no doubt that PADI meets or exceeds this standard.

 

[Thalassamania]

What is the standard?

If you are saying that a course that teaches more is the standard, then a course that teaches less than that course will be sub-standard.

Kinda by definition, no?

Another way of saying that is that any course that teaches less than another course that teaches more is teaching less. Welcome to the wonderful world of tautology!

That's what a said.

The issue is whether that additional training is necessary. The most complete and thorough driver training course for new drivers will not prepare students to drive in the Daytona 500. That does not make the course substandard for its purposes.

Who's the better driver? Who's the better diver? If you set that bar low enough nothing is ever sub-standard, like George Carlin said, "everybody's special" ... but that's just a classic semantic game, not reality.

You have said repeatedly, for example, that new OW divers should be able to tie a bowline with one hand while wearing three fingered mittens or dry gloves, and your course provides that training. If that is your standard, then any course that does not prove that instruction is substandard.

You keep coming back to that because you think it is some big deal and a waste of time. It is rather quick and easy to teach and is a set of skills that anyone who is going to spend time around the water, especially on a boat, should have. I am willing to modify the mitt/glove requirement for this new class of divers, the tropical only vacation diver.

As a business, PADI needs to be profitable but not unlike any other business where training and certification is involved, the reduction of risk or more importantly, protection against litigation is the top dog in this fight.

Actually I disagree with you strongly here. Insurance is one of the largest profit centers in the industry, for any number of reasons, "protection against litigation," is not the top dog, creating a deep pocket so that there are big cases and then scaring everyone with those cases is that way to keep the cash rolling in.

PADI (and any other business) must balance profit vs member safety and establish a defensible position in order to survive. While I do feel that many of the specialty classes offered are kind of silly, no one is holding a gun to anyones head to take them.

As for the OW or other basic courses, most of the instructors I know take teaching new divers and their safety very seriously, regardless of the agency. To say the class design alone puts people at risk is to say the instructor does so as well and clearly, that's not the case with the instructors I know.

When critical items are intentionality removed from a course, (e.g., basic rescue skills) then that puts new divers at risk, no matter how seriously the instructors that you know appear to take seriously their student's safety.

In addition, it is hard to separate the agency from the instructor when it comes to teaching a course. Again, the instructors I know that currently teach OW insure not only the competence of the graduates but they also instill into their eager charges that while they now can rent air and buy gear, they need to continue to learn and practice in order to become a fully competent diver.

That's where we part company, I think someone who is turned loose to dive with a similar buddy needs to be competent.

 

[Diver0001]

when PADI started allowing rescue (u/w recovery of conscious/unconscious diver) into the OW program?

I think you have to go back and re-read what he said. He said "ELEMENTS" of the rescue course, like establishing positive buoyancy on the surface (which is an obvious discussion point for the CESA) and dealing with a diver in distress on the surface. The tired diver tow, for example, which is in confined-2, is arguably a "rescue" skill as well.

Can the instructor test/evaluate this as a mandatory requirement of the OW program (required for certification at his/her election)?

I think it would be substantially exceeding the scope of the OW course to teach controlled buoyant lifts during OW. At the OW level, divers are still getting a grip on how to make a proper ascent themselves! If you felt it was necessary, however, you could do it.... but you would have to sell the students the OW, AOW and Rescue courses as one package to teach them all of the rescue skills. It would also result in the student being issued 3 cards, not one.

But I already told you that and it seems to not be sinking in.

How about tide tables? If these are required for safety in the local diving area, can the instructor test/evaluate on these as mandatory for certification? Again, when was this changed?

I deal with that in OW because it's necessary to ensure that OW divers can find the "slack" times for planning dives (or at least for knowing when they *shouldn't* be getting in the water. Some of our best local diving is in tidal waters so they need to know. I was also taught this in MY OW course in 1984. Nobody wants newbie divers getting caught out in a current they weren't expecting! This is just something that's necessary for local diving in my area.

It was my understanding that in 2010, all buddy breathing was discontinued. Is it still valid at the DM level under the new Standards?

yes

When I was censored by PADI HQ, I didn't think anything in the Standards prohibited these things as well.

You're confusing two different things. If I understand what you said about this, you were teaching pretty much the whole rescue course in OW and not giving them a rescue card or sequencing the courses OW, AOW, RESCUE like PADI perscribes.

I think this fell along the line of what Peter Guy was saying; as you can embellish the standards to a degree, but can't add anything to it that's not specifically mentioned.

Unless it's something that is required for local diving.

I've given you a couple of examples in previous posts. A basic handling of gas management is required by an EU norm where I live and it's not in the standards.

Likewise with teaching drysuit if the checkout dives are going to be done in water that's too cold for a wetsuit.

But I've told you this before too and this doesn't seem to be sinking in either.

deeping-out (embellishing) is a grey area. Adding a substantial part of the rescue course to OW changes the scope of the course to such a degree that it clearly isn't "embellishment" any more. I'm getting more and more of a sense that this is what made you so cynical 18 years ago.

What I can I say... you can't just do whatever you want. If it's so important to an instructor to re-write the standards to suit his/her personal convictions then clearly the system isn't for them. But that doesn't mean the system doesn't work. That's black and white thinking.

R..