The Philosophy of Diver Training

[The Chairman]

Would you consider these statements fair?

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

No. There is no evidence as to what their corporate culture endorses other than what they publish: "Live the Dream" is far more about esoteric values than monetary compensation.

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

No. PADI courses are designed to allow diving in similar or better conditions than what they trained in. They are ready for those conditions, just as any other class would be. This is like asking which is safer: air or NitrOx? The answer is that NitrOx might allow you to dive longer, but it is not inherently safer.

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

No. The PADI system is a modular while yours is not. Divers can start to dive earlier and add skills that YOU REQUIRE at their leisure. But then you train divers in a particular discipline: to be scientists. The needs of the scientist are not commensurate with the needs of the recreational diver. There seems to be a proclivity by those who train "working" divers to hold recreational divers to the same standards. The needs, desires and goals of the two sets of divers are as disparate as work is from play.

 

[Diver0001]

My statements were made as a result of PADI HQ censoring me that this is the way it is...

I wouldn't say that they "censored" you, as must as told you that teaching the DCBC scuba course and issuing a PADI card wasn't cool with them.

1. Rescue of a submerged victim had no place in a PADI OW class and its inclusion was a breach of PADI Standards.

I would have to say that this is still true. However.... the WHOLE truth about this, is that those skills ARE defined in the PADI programme, but not at the OW level. If you want to teach newbie divers these skills you can, but you'll have to teach them the OW, AOW and RESCUE courses as one package, sequence the courses in the right order and issue 3 cards.

2. Altitude Tables had no place in a PADI OW class and its inclusion was a breach of PADI Standards.

This is a specialty course in the PADI System. As previously mentioned (and either not heard or refused to listen) you can offer the Altitude specialty together with the PADI OW course but you will have to sequence the two courses in the right order and issue 2 cards.

Whose altitude tables were you using, Wanye? It's possible you were using somone elses Altitude material and that's what they didn't like?

3. I would not be covered by PADI liability insurance for anything that was not specifically outlined within PADI Standards and as such, I would be open to personal liability.

4. I was not to test/examine on anything that wasn't specifically outlined within PADI Standards and this was to be the only criteria to determine PADI OW certification.

Yeah, I can sort of follow the twisted logic of this if you think about liability. If you "test" someone on something then I could imagine it somehow increasing your liability exposure as compared to not doing it. You insist on "testing" and use that synonymously with "teaching" but did you ask them if you could "teach" something that's not in the standards, like finding slack tide on the tide tables? Given your apparent difficulty with distinguishing between "test" and "teach" on this thread, I have my suspicions that what they said and what you thought they said might not be the same.

R..

 

[Walter]

Jax,

My copy of PADI standards is from 2002 and therefore out of date, but I'm told by those with current standards that this has not changed.

Under General Standards and Procedures
Training Standards
Certification

If you advertise a diver training course as a PADI course, you must conduct it following PADI training standards and issue a PADI certification to all divers who satisfactorily meet the performance requirements.

Absolutely. If you were within standards they will be right there saying so. If you were not within standards, you won't see them. Then you will be on your own to find people who will say that your independent decisions on what should be taught were valid.

Some agencies encourage you to add to your classes. Unless you do something stupid, they will be there for you. I prefer them.

You want people to think that PADI instructors are forced by standards to certify inadequately trained divers, which is false.

That's a matter of opinion. If the student has met all PADI requirements, as evaluated by the instructor according to PADI's definitions, the instructor is required to certify the student. Is the diver adequately trained? That's a matter of opinion.

Only after being exposed and corrected on your repeated assertions that you ARE a PADI instructor, which also turns out to be false.

I believe you are mistaken here. I've seen Wayne state many times, in this thread and before this thread started that he is a former PADI instructor. I have never seen him claim to be a current PADI instructor.

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

I don't see it as logical at all unless you want to use it as a standard by which any course could be defended.

I think it would be substantially exceeding the scope of the OW course to teach controlled buoyant lifts during OW.

At least two agencies disagree.

 

[Thalassamania]

No. There is no evidence as to what their corporate culture endorses other than what they publish: "Live the Dream" is far more about esoteric values than monetary compensation.

There is plenty of evidence, just not the smoking gun that you insist on.

No. PADI courses are designed to allow diving in similar or better conditions than what they trained in. They are ready for those conditions, just as any other class would be. This is like asking which is safer: air or NitrOx? The answer is that NitrOx might allow you to dive longer, but it is not inherently safer.

Above it's MOD NITROX is "safer" when used in the same way as air would be. It ALSO may permit you to dive longer, at the same level of risk for a shorter air dive. All in all, it's pretty clear that air is inferior in all ways except in having a deeper MOD.

No. The PADI system is a modular while yours is not. Divers can start to dive earlier and add skills that YOU REQUIRE at their leisure. But then you train divers in a particular discipline: to be scientists. The needs of the scientist are not commensurate with the needs of the recreational diver. There seems to be a proclivity by those who train "working" divers to hold recreational divers to the same standards. The needs, desires and goals of the two sets of divers are as disparate as work is from play.

It's not surprising, you make a common mistake, I do not, "train divers in a particular discipline: to be scientists." Rather my first goal is to train scientists and scientists-to-be to be divers. My second mission (usually about half my class) is to train non-scientists to be capable and competent enough divers to serve as buddies for those scientists and scientists-to-be. Frankly their needs are, IMHO, completely congruent with what I would describe as a competent entry-level diver ... which I realize is way in excess of what you consider to be a competent entry-level diver.

...
I would have to say that this is still true. However.... the WHOLE truth about this, is that those skills ARE defined in the PADI programme, but not at the OW level. If you want to teach newbie divers these skills you can, but you'll have to teach them the OW, AOW and RESCUE courses as one package, sequence the courses in the right order and issue 3 cards.

So PADI insurance would not cover you to teach basic rescue skills as part of an O/W course, even if you did not test those skills and even if you felt those skills were essential to safe diving in the environment you were teaching in?

This is a specialty course in the PADI System. As previously mentioned (and either not heard or refused to listen) you can offer the Altitude specialty together with the PADI OW course but you will have to sequence the two courses in the right order and issue 2 cards.

Similarly, PADI insurance would not cover you to teach altitude diving skills, even if the course you were teaching was at lake Tahoe, or Denver or even at my home (3,000 ft.), even if you did not test that knowledge and even if you felt that knowledge was essential to safe diving in the environment you were teaching in?

Whose altitude tables were you using, Wanye? It's possible you were using somone elses Altitude material and that's what they didn't like?

DCIEM I'd guess, a much better choice.

 

[The Chairman]

I wouldn't say that they "censored" you, as must as told you that teaching the DCBC scuba course and issuing a PADI card wasn't cool with them.

I could have sworn he said censured the first time. It has a whole different meaning than censored.

 

[Diver0001]

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

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

Gee....Makes you wonder where the comments about standards comes from. LOL

Basically, you guys are saying that no 2 instructors are the same and their criteria for passing can be different. So much for standards. LOL

Well.....

That's essentially true. The issue is that "mastery" is defined in the standards (verbatim) as follows:

"During confined and open water dives, mastery is defined
as performing the skill so it meets the stated performance
requirements in a reasonably comfortable, fluid, repeatable
manner as would be expected of a diver at that certification level"

It is left to the instructor to decide for themselves how they interpret the words

"reasonably" and
"expected"

Furthermore, PADI doesn't do any QA on the actual results of training (ie. how well the students can dive). The QA process tests the "delivery process" (what was taught, ratios, if the blue performance requirements were met) not the "product quality" (how well the students can execute the skills).

So these two things create a big "fox guarding the hen house" effect where instructors have to self monitor how well they accomplished teaching mastery to a "reasonably" "expected" bar.

Which is why "standards" in the general sense don't stop crappy instructors from getting crappy results but they don't impede good instructors from getting good results either.

An ex-user on this board used to write about this issue until he his fingers bled and people didn't seem to get it. There *is* a huge problem with training when instructors are the ones who have to decide (and self-monitor) how competent students need to be in terms of the "mastery" bar.

His point was always that standards (the performance requirements) had to be tightened up to take away the "wiggle room" from the "worst" instructors. That's a possible solution, I guess, and I can understand how people would consider this a problem with standards. It's really a problem with QA, though.

Incidentally, this issue isn't limited to PADI. All of the major players have issues like this.

Jeff you called this having the cake and eating it too, but it's really the way it is. If students are crappy, ultimately they were trained by the instructor, not by the agency.

R..

 

[boulderjohn]

Similarly, PADI insurance would not cover you to teach altitude diving skills, even if the course you were teaching was at lake Tahoe, or Denver or even at my home (3,000 ft.), even if you did not test that knowledge and even if you felt that knowledge was essential to safe diving in the environment you were teaching in?

I have already mentioned this in this thread.

The fact that altitude must be taken into consideration for dives over 1,000 feet above sea level is covered in OW module 5. It is stated explicitly on the back of their RDP. In the classroom I show them my altitude table then and explain why.

When our students do their dives in Colorado, when we talk about the dive planning and log the dives, I pass the table around so they can see it and convert the depths appropriately. That instruction takes about 30 seconds. It is ridiculously simple.

I am really not worried about being sued because I showed them how to make an altitude adjustment.

 

[Thalassamania]

...
Furthermore, PADI doesn't do any QA on the actual results of training (ie. how well the students can dive). The QA process tests the "delivery process" (what was taught, ratios, if the blue performance requirements were met) not the "product quality" (how well the students can execute the skills).

So these two things create a big "fox guarding the hen house" effect where instructors have to self monitor how well they accomplished teaching mastery to a "reasonably" "expected" bar.

Which is why "standards" in the general sense don't stop crappy instructors from getting crappy results but they don't impede good instructors from getting good results either.

An ex-user on this board used to write about this issue until he his fingers bled and people didn't seem to get it. There *is* a huge problem with training when instructors are the ones who have to decide (and self-monitor) how competent students need to be in terms of the "mastery" bar.

His point was always that standards (the performance requirements) had to be tightened up to take away the "wiggle room" from the "worst" instructors. That's a possible solution, I guess, and I can understand how people would consider this a problem with standards. It's really a problem with QA, though.

Incidentally, this issue isn't limited to PADI. All of the major players have issues like this.

Jeff you called this having the cake and eating it too, but it's really the way it is. If students are crappy, ultimately they were trained by the instructor, not by the agency.

R..

Hm ... interesting perspective. Perhaps that's one of the reasons that I'm more comfortable in the Scientific Diving Community. No one gives a rat's ass about, "delivery process," all that anyone cares about is, "product quality." There is an assumption that high quality "product quality" is a good (if indirect) measure of the quality of the "delivery process."

 

[Guy Alcala]

Please quote where anyone has specifically called you a coward or a liar. This quote should contain a form of the verb "to be". You have inferred this from statements only to play the martyr card, and no one buys it but you. I even made fun of your proclivity to take offense where none was given. Give it a rest, man. No one has insulted you, but you have done more to harm your reputation in this thread than everyone else combined.<snip more of the same>

Without wishing to jump into the larger dogfight (I've made my opinions on the adequacy of current OW training by the major agencies clear on several occasions), I will take exception to your statements above.

No, no one has specifically said "Wayne, you're a liar." OTOH, Wayne's claims have been specifically described as lies by Diver0001, and he has been described as taking the cowardly way out by you. To take the first case, since a lie is a deliberate mis-statement or falsehood intended to deceive, one would have to assume some form of immaculate conception for these lies if Diver0001 wasn't accusing Wayne of being a liar. Are we to believe that these 'lies' just appeared spontaneously on their own, with no connection to Wayne?

Now, if Diver0001 had just labeled Wayne's claims and statements as false or untrue (i.e. wrong, mistaken, in error), then he would be disagreeing with Wayne's statements without applying an intent to deceive to them. But as I've read this thread, Diver0001 (and you) have accused Wayne of deliberately making false statements to support his agenda (which you claim is PADI bashing). What other inference can be drawn by anyone with an understanding of plain English, other than that you are calling him a liar?

As to your use of the term 'cowardly', that seems to me to be slightly more of a gray area, although again since you were ascribing a motive to an action , i.e. for Wayne "to play the martyr", how else can it be understood if not that you're calling him a coward?

Now, if I say that someone's argument is idiotic, I may not be calling someone an idiot; we all say or do idiotic things on occasion. OTOH, if someone is constantly advancing arguments that I find idiotic, I may well think they are an idiot but decline to say so directly, letting my opinion of their arguments say so for me (with some minimal reading between the lines).

So, to conclude, your statement that

"You have inferred this from statements only to play the martyr card, and no one buys it but you. I even made fun of your proclivity to take offense where none was given. Give it a rest, man. No one has insulted you, but you have done more to harm your reputation in this thread than everyone else combined."

is incorrect. I 'buy' it, he has been insulted by you and Diver0001, and I don't find that Wayne has harmed his reputation in this thread. I wish I could say the same for you and Diver0001, because prior to this I have valued both your input and various discussions we've had, as we've always been able to disagree while remaining civil.

Wayne has stated his view of his past experiences with PADI, and the conclusions he has drawn from them. They may be out of date, they are certainly filtered through his own biases (as is everyone's), but I believe his opinions to be honestly held, whether I agree or disagree with them. I do not believe that truth can be described as 'bashing', but you are free to dispute that what he claims isn't the truth. I haven't found the arguments you, Diver0001 and others have advanced in contradiction to Wayne's claims convincing, but then I'm filtering them through my own biases and experiences so that's not surprising. Nevertheless, prior to this turning into a personal slanging match over the past 10 or 20 pages, I thought this thread was quite useful, especially for newbies. I know it's well trodden ground for those of us who've been around for awhile, but for someone coming to it for the first time it can be quite an eye opener.

So, I'd just like to ask that all of you leave off the personal insults if you wish to continue the debate: by all means marshal your facts and make your arguments, but leave the ad hominem attacks out of it.

Guy (SSI OW/AOW, and considered both certs inadequate for my local diving)

 

[The Chairman]

There is plenty of evidence, just not the smoking gun that you insist on.

As much as there is for God, I am sure. Sorry, but I lack your faith.

Above it's MOD NITROX is "safer" when used in the same way as air would be. It ALSO may permit you to dive longer, at the same level of risk for a shorter air dive. All in all, it's pretty clear that air is inferior in all ways except in having a deeper MOD.

Precisely. NitrOx being used as "air" is safer than air. Are you telling us that air is now substandard to NitrOx? Aren't you really short changing yourself by not requiring Tr-Mix? It's a slippery slope.

It's not surprising, you make a common mistake, I do not, "train divers in a particular discipline: to be scientists."

Yeah, my wording was a bit sloppy there and you have come to expect far more precision. However, a scientist IS a working diver, no? If yes, then you have proven my contention that you want to hold RECREATIONAL divers to the same standards as WORKING divers. As I stated before, there are differences that make this less than an optimal approach for everyone.