The Philosophy of Diver Training

[The Chairman]

Yes, I saw that definition. I also noted it was the third definition, with the first being the one I was using (or a version thereof). And if you were to search all the various internet English dictionaries as well as printed ones, I imagine you'd find that the primary definition of lie is a deliberate statement intended to deceive, or words to that effect. But that's by the by, we could just ask people what they thought Diver0001 meant when he stated that Wayne's claims were lies - your definition or mine. If the primary purpose of language is to accurately communicate one's views, then what your audience thinks you mean is surely relevant.

Guy

Since you want to belabor the point.

You ADMIT that the third definition is a valid option.
You DO NOT contend that this definition is obsolete or obscure (as it is not).
Diver0001 has come on to say that he was NOT calling DCBC a liar and apologized for any misconception.

There is no harm and no foul here. Any such inference was unintentional and any continued adherence to DCBC being impugned is merely an attempt to play the martyr card. Shenanigans.

Now, can we move on?

 

[boulderjohn]

So, are you saying that every PADI O/W course that is taught in Tahoe should incorporate the Altitude Specialty Course at additional cost?

But if the instructor in Tahoe wanted to give it away for free PADI wouldn't care.

Pete, you're missing the point ... the question is, will PADI Insurance cover an instructor when he or she teaches altitude diving procedures to an O/W course in Tahoe if the students are not enrolled, simultaneously, in an Altitude Specialty Course (which would never be free, there's the cost of the Cert and the materials if nothing else)?

Actually, PADI would have a problem with a course being taught at altitude that DID NOT contain information about how to execute a safe dive at altitude.

I am not quite clear on why my specific example of altitude diving, given more than once in this thread, is being ignored. Is it perhaps because it shows the speciousness of the theoretical complaints?

I have already described how we handle altitude in Colorado within PADI standards. I have already shown that it is easily done with no extra expense to the student and no concern about insurance.

Thal, you are a very intelligent person who has earned my respect. Please understand how frustrating it is for people like me who do regularly and without any problem the things you keep saying cannot be done.

 

[The Chairman]

Please understand how frustrating it is for people like me who do regularly and without any problem the things you keep saying cannot be done.

If you tell yourself long enough that something is impossible, then it's hard to accept someone glibly stating that they do it all the time. While I have never had to teach anyone altitude diving (I live near sea level), I can certainly attest to having to teach things like Tides and how it affects your diving. While not a PADI instructor, it's obvious that for someone to dive Blue Heron Bridge safely, a cursory knowledge of how to read tides is essential for them to replicate that dive after certification.

Somehow, I fear that to accept that this is not only possible under PADI's system, but could even be mandatory to meet standards blows a gaping hole in any attempt to bash PADI for being substandard. It does for me.

 

[Diver0001]

That's a delightful, but dreadfully stupid example that bears only superficial similarities to what was being discussed. To point out the inherent foolishness of the simile, as I pointed out, initially, they are not independent but, "There is an assumption that high quality "product quality" is a good (if indirect) measure of the quality of the "delivery process." In the case of diving instruction I think it far more important that a candidate be able to pass a comprehensive written exam and a diving checkout than it is to be able to display all the chapter quizzes and such.

Of course it's a simple example. But it's serves to illustrate that delivery process can't be inferred from product quality. Clearly, the first product in my example was superior to the 2nd, but the 2nd was the right product for the customer. If you just looked at the product then you might think that the delivery process in product 1 was better. But in this case, it wasn't.

The example is just to point out that you can't infer that delivery process was good by looking at the product. Some excellent divers could result from incredibly chaotic, perhaps incredibly lengthy courses if the student had enough time, money and talent to pick it up *despite* the way it was delivered. Just think back to your schooling. WE've all taken courses like that where we learned *despite* the teaching and not because of it.

But ok, you misunderstood where I was going with it, so I guess I'll spell it out after all:

The converse is also true.

You can't infer product quality by looking at delivery process either. They are separate items that require separate attention. That's the reason we have project managers and product specialists like programmers or whatever.... each has their own specialism.

So let's connect the dots.

Here's the thing. There *are* managers out there who feel that if you jsut follow process taht the product will automatically be good.

That's obviously not the case either. Just look at government. Most government agencies have some kind of defined project management processes (or they borrow them) but they outsource things blindly without checks and balances to ensure good product quality and their projects aren't automatically successful by just painting by the numbers. (How many space vehicles have blown up over the years?)

It's like this in diver education too.

If an instructor *just* follows process (goes through the motions), then they won't automatically create good divers.

However, PADI believes this to be true. At least this is what I was told by my instructors when I was gonig through the IDC. I questioned the setup of the QA process because I was seeing that it was expressing "follow process and the results will be good".

I can understand why they say this because standards are like a product quality plan and *should* create a minimum bar for quality and probably *would* if instructors weren't left to judge their own work.

Now the last dot:

What PADI does isn't the answer. The QA is too focused on delivery. But your idea of ignoring delivery and just focusing on the product won't get you their either because courses could become too long, too "unmanaged"/chaotic, they could have enormous scope "ballast" with a lot of stuff in them that the students don't need (and don't want) to know, and they would cost far too much.

R..

 

[Guy Alcala]

Since you want to belabor the point.

Well,, not for 30, 40 or 50 posts, which you've been doing with Wayne.

You ADMIT that the third definition is a valid option.

Per that dictionary, sure. It's not in my home dictionary (which admittedly dates from 1956), nor is it a definition that I've ever used, for the same reason you stated in a previous post [see below].

You DO NOT contend that this definition is obsolete or obscure (as it is not).

Actually, I hadn't contended one way or another, but since you ask I contend that it is obscure, as it's certainly a rarer usage than the primary definition. To quote from Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged, 1981), "1. to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive. . . 2. to create a false or misleading impression: convey an untruth <unless these figures~ >< that thermometer must be lying >. . . "

Clearly, definition 1 is the one that applies in this case, as it refers to a person's statements rather than inanimate objects. And if there were any doubt, from the same source "syn Lie, Prevaricate, Equivocate, Palter, Fib can mean to tell an untruth directly or indirectly. Lie is direct and blunt, imputing dishonesty." Now you must agree that this is also the common usage, because we find this statement in a post by you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetDoc http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ba...-diver-training-post5092541.html/lpost5092541
&#65529;FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=View Post"http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ba...-diver-training-post5092541.html/lpost5092541

It's a fine point, but he never calls him a liar. However, I can see how it could be inferred by his use of the word "lie" in reference to DCBC's claims. I avoid the word since it can cause such ill feelings and can often be mistakenly inferred in such a manner. There are better ways to label something as "false".

Diver0001 has come on to say that he was NOT calling DCBC a liar and apologized for any misconception.

There is no harm and no foul here. Any such inference was unintentional and any continued adherence to DCBC being impugned is merely an attempt to play the martyr card. Shenanigans.

Now, can we move on?

Well, now, since Diver0001 went on to say after his apology,

"Don't play the victim card to try wiggling out of this, Wayne.

Nobody is attacking YOU, as should be apparent ffrom all of the posts I've made in the last couple of days.

We are *attacking* and with good reason, with valid arguments and with the conviction to to get the truth out that your opinions about PADI are cynical, negative and false.

If you have a problem with that, I'm sorry but we're not going to back off. Putting your PADI bashing BS to the test is going to be the new theme on Scubaboard until everyone understands how you work and draws their own conclusions about your statements.

If they agree with you, fine. If they don't, also fine. But starting yesterday you're going to have to debate it. Playing the victim card isn't going to get you off the hook.

R.."

Now, whether Wayne's opinions towards PADI specifically are cynical only he knows for sure; whether they are false is subject to argument and evidence. That they are negative is undeniable, but negative <> PADI-bashing to me; I can make plenty of similar statements about my class experiences with SSI; if I accurately detail those experiences, does the fact that many of them are negative make it bashing if they're true? Actually, ISTM Wayne's problem is more with RSTC standards than PADI specifically, although he's used his personal experiences with PADI as an example of why he disagrees so strongly with those standards.

But what are we to make of Diver0001's statement ". . . until everyone understands how you [DCBC] work and draws their own conclusions about your statements."

The clear inference to me is that Diver0001 believes Wayne is engaging in some devilishly clever attempt to undermine PADI by using lies and 1/2 truths for nefarious reasons of his own, and we need Diver0001's help to expose this plot. ISTM Wayne doesn't need to be "playing the martyr card" (a phrase I'm rapidly growing tired of) to think his motives are being impugned, but maybe that's just me.

People, we're talking about diving here, not international relations or politics. There are no black helicopters involved, as the Tri-Lateral Commission and the Illuminati are otherwise occupied. And now, back to lurking; you may have the last word.

Guy

 

[Thalassamania]

Let's start with the concept that the "process" sucks. Grant that and what do you say about the "product?" All you can say is that when the product is good, the student was a "natural" that even that crappy class couldn't hurt. But it did hurt because the student was only "good" instead of "world class" as he or she should have been.

On the other hand, when the "product" is good, it may or may not mean that the "process" was, as you observe, but that's for one-offs. For multiples, when the "product" is consistently good, both within each group produced and between multiple groups, you've a rather safe bet that the "process" is one that should (at least) be studied.

With respect to the altitude example. Everyone slow down for a minute. A statement was made that PADI Insurance only covered things that were within standards. Things that were a separate specialty course were said to not be appropriate inclusions in a PADI O/W course (rescue was the example at the time). What I am pointing out, and asking for resolution of, is the inherent contradiction of those two sentences when it comes to teaching an O/W course at Tahoe.

 

[The Chairman]

The clear inference to me is that Diver0001 believes Wayne is engaging in some devilishly clever attempt to undermine PADI by using lies and 1/2 truths for nefarious reasons of his own, and we need Diver0001's help to expose this plot. ISTM Wayne doesn't need to be "playing the martyr card" (a phrase I'm rapidly growing tired of) to think his motives are being impugned, but maybe that's just me.

It's just you. I don't think that I would use devilishly clever. It's nothing more than simple revenge.

I have stated that I believe Wayne to be a POV Warrior as well as a PADI basher. I have also suggested that his motive comes from an earlier altercation with PADI in which (oh the horror) he was censured. At this point, he took his toys and went home and is now seemingly bent on having his revenge on the agency which rejected him for violating their standards some 18 years ago.

For some reason, he wants us to treat him differently, then he would treat PADI or anyone who would have the temerity to expose his shenanigans. Isn't it ironic? Doncha think?

 

[Teamcasa]

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.

The only way you get to have deep pockets is to be profitable and minimize risk.

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

...and know their limitations. For me, diving with new divers is one of the most rewarding experiences old farts like me still get to have.

 

[Thalassamania]

The only way you get to have deep pockets is to be profitable and minimize risk.

You are neglecting the substantial moneys that are pocketed from your insurance dues, that nothing what-so-ever to do with the actual price of coverage. There are two real products in the diving industry, books and insurance.

...and know their limitations. For me, diving with new divers is one of the most rewarding experiences old farts like me still get to have.

I agree, but I also feel that at my (our?) age, a competent buddy should have good rescue skills.

 

[Walter]

Let me see if I understand the situation.

We should all refrain from assuming intentions and motivation. We only know the motivation/intention if the person/entity tells what that is. I know I've been hauled out on the carpet for the practice. I promised to try to change my ways and I believe I've succeeded.

In this thread Pete and I have both commented on this particular subject and agreed with the concept. I see it continuing and even increasing. Is Wayne not entitled to the same respect we offer a faceless corporation?

Pete, I once made you very angry, and you had every right to be angry, for making assumptions about your motivations for positions you were taking. I was wrong. I was terribly wrong to disrespect you that way. When I look back at all the things I've posted on ScubaBoard in the last 9½ years, that is the one post I regret.

Pete, you have repeatedly done the exact same thing to Wayne in this thread. Pete, you are my friend. I care about you. For your sake and out of respect for Wayne, I'm asking you to stop. Nothing on this entire board is worth lowering ourselves to being disrespectful to ourselves and to other human beings.

I like Wayne. We often agree on major issues. I agree with most of his major points in this thread. Right now this thread is sidetracked to a very minor point. I agree with Wayne on one part of that minor point. The other parts of this point are things of which I have no knowledge and don't affect me. We all need to drop it and move on.

Wayne, a PADI instructor must certify a student who has met PADI's requirements. Everyone has agreed on that point. Must they add a specialty course to add material? Maybe, maybe not. I don't think anyone here cares anymore. Are they covered by insurance if they don't add that specialty course? Maybe, maybe not. I don't think anyone here cares anymore. Drop it. It's taking away from the discussion. Assuming you are correct, I can think of ways to get around those problems. I teach the specialty course. I have students fill out additional paper work for the course. I never collect a fee for the course. After everything is complete, I tell my students if the want the extra cert, I can give it to them for the cost of the card. Those that want it, get it. Those that don't want it don't get it. I'm covered by insurance. I'm not violating standards. Everyone is happy. Is it a pain in the neck? Sure. Is it easier with your agency or mine? Sure. It's a minor point.

Let's move on to points that matter.