The Philosophy of Diver Training

[DCBC]

as for the market, fast and cheap will always be more popular. I have no arguments with you on that point. On the other hand, there is a market for quality. I'm not trying to take over the market. I'm happy in my little corner of it. The other guys are welcome to the vast majority who want to buy a card and are happy having their hands held on dives. My method has not failed, it does quite nicely.

Bravo!

 

[Kingpatzer]

We weren't discussing the market, we were talking about misinformation about a method of teaching diving. You made the statement, "I see is a bunch of curmudgeons complaining about how they had to walk to school up-hill in the snow both ways when they were young." I was merely pointing out why it wasn't valid. Now you quote me and imply I'm off topic. If we are off topic, we're off topic together.

Fair enough.

I disagree with your contention that my comment is not valid though -- as the complaint is basically reduced to "back when we were better, it was longer and more involved and therefore the current methods are lacking."

Perhaps they are when one operates from the standing assumption that one class should teach someone everything they need to know. But since that assumption is not part of the prevailing philosophy, the comparison is immaterial. Addressing how the current method fails to meet it's goals in light of the starting assumptions and goals of the method would be valid, but that isn't what those who spend their time here complaining about how the system sucks do.

Good is a matter of opinion.

Which is why it's not a particularly meaningful basis for a conversation about the validity of a method. What matters is effectiveness. Does the method meet it's stated goals in a cost-effective manner without undue negative impacts? What is the end value to the student? What is the end impacts on the diving community, dive industry, environment, and other effected arenas? How does that compare to other competing methods?

Answer those questions and "good" takes care of itself.

As for the market, fast and cheap will always be more popular.

But it won't always be more successful. Fast and cheap fails in the market when quality is too low for the consumer to tolerate. So if the discussion is about the quality of current dive education, it is clearly not so low as to be a problem with those who want the service.

On the other hand, there is a market for quality. I'm not trying to take over the market. I'm happy in my little corner of it.

Given the amount of posts complaining about the current market leaders in terms of teaching philosophy, I'm not sure that that statement is true of a fair number of people who are trying to go the 'long, involved, comprehensive, spend 8 weeks learning to be a diver just like back in the good ol' days' route.

The other guys are welcome to the vast majority who want to buy a card and are happy having their hands held on dives. My method has not failed, it does quite nicely.

Great. Then why the complaints against those who are likewise doing quite fine?

 

[Walter]

Perhaps they are when one operates from the standing assumption that one class should teach someone everything they need to know. But since that assumption is not part of the prevailing philosophy, the comparison is immaterial.

That assumption is not part of my philosophy either. I just try to teach them what they need to know to dive with a reasonable amount of risk.

Addressing how the current method fails to meet it's goals in light of the starting assumptions and goals of the method would be valid

I'm doing my best not to assume other people's intentions. Without stated goals, I have no way of knowing if those goals are met or not. If the goal is to allow divers to dive independently, that goal is often not met. If the goal is to produce divers who are less likely to panic, the goal is rarely met. If the goal is to have people breathe underwater, look around, and be OK as long as nothing goes wrong, the goal is usually met pretty well.

Does the method meet it's stated goals in a cost-effective manner without undue negative impacts?

Are there stated goals?

What is the end value to the student?

Only the student can answer that question. With the high drop out rate, I suspect many don't value it very highly, but that's just a guess.

What is the end impacts on the diving community, dive industry, environment, and other effected arenas?

The impact on the diving community is complex. I can not trust buddies until I've been able to evaluate their diving ability. Guides are now required of all divers in some locations. Charter operators assume you can't dive until you prove otherwise. Divemasters are now forced to make rescues as a matter of routine.

How does that compare to other competing methods?

None of those problems come from a more comprehensive approach.

So if the discussion is about the quality of current dive education, it is clearly not so low as to be a problem with those who want the service.

Maybe, maybe not. Some are happy, no question. Are the majority? I know the drop out rate is high. Is that because they know they can't take care of themselves on dives and are afraid to continue? I suspect it is. I've encountered lots of divers who were not happy with their too fast instruction.

Great. Then why the complaints against those who are likewise doing quite fine?

I don't complain about them unless they mislead prospective divers. I do object to statements that everyone teaches the same things or that all agencies are essentially the same because they all meet RSTC standards or similar misleading things. In general, I merely answer questions. I don't complain about other methods.

I disagree with the typical method of teaching diving, but I'll defend your right to teach that way. I will not defend your right to mislead people about the differences. I'm not implying you mislead people, merely that it does take place.

 

[rstofer]

Where the problem comes in is those who do these courses and DO NOT recognize their limitations.

This thread and its variants continually point to a 'problem' where, by DAN statistics, there is none. Sure there are a few fatalities but, when you break it down, they are happening to older people. A gigantic proportion of the fatalities occur with divers over 40 and age is considered at least a contributing factor.

Every time this 'poor training' thread comes up, I sort of cringe. Not that I keep my keyboard quiet, mind you!

In my view, there are very few incidents where a lack of training was the first and only cause of an incident. Even in the case of OOA, it's not like divers weren't trained to watch their SPG. It isn't a lack of training accident, it's a lack of following the training accident. I don't know what page it is on but I'm pretty sure even the PADI manual suggests that running out of air is a bad thing. And I am pretty sure it mentions that you will run out of air quicker at depth.

True, resort trained divers should not dive the North Atlantic. But, if they have the money to dive at resorts, why in the world would they want dive the North Atlantic? If I could afford to dive in Thailand or the Maldives, I certainly wouldn't dive in Monterey.

I think most divers work up gradually. The ones that don't will probably have a problem. Sort of like that newly minted father/son team that dove to 185' off San Diego. Only the son survived. Is this a training issue? Did they not understand that they would run out of air quickly at those depths? What part of "OW divers should limit themselves to 60ft " did they not understand?

But that doesn't make it a training problem.

Richard

 

[fnfalman]

I think that PADI, NAUI, SSI, LA County, BSAC and a host of agencies should adapt the training standards that the USNavy SEALs train to, at least as far as SCUBA portion goes. After said training, the OW diver can not only rescue himself and his buddy but can also do a 2000-meters navigation dive without the use of compass and can take out a Great White Shark with nothing but a toothpick.

 

[Kingpatzer]

If the goal is to allow divers to dive independently, that goal is often not met. If the goal is to produce divers who are less likely to panic, the goal is rarely met. If the goal is to have people breathe underwater, look around, and be OK as long as nothing goes wrong, the goal is usually met pretty well.

The stated goal of the PADI OW course is to produce entry level divers who are capable of diving in conditions similar or better than those in which they trained. The PADI manual further strongly recommends to student divers that they are novices and should dive with more experienced buddies, DM's and to take additional courses to gain experience before doing so. Instructors, at least the ones' I have worked with, are generally quite adamant about that point as well.

Given the vast majority of divers are trained in calm, clear, warm water, and those who are not are generally trained in calm, shallow areas of small lakes and quarries, it is not an expectation that a PADI student out of OW is going to do well in the North Atlantic, or that they are even going to be doing minimally challenging surf entries unless those areas are where they trained -- in which case it is highly unlikely that they did a weekend course (and if they did, then I would be hard pressed to believe that those particular instructors met the PADI standards, since skill mastery (as understood in the context of mastery learning) in such conditions would be highly unlikely.

 

[rstofer]

Maybe, maybe not. Some are happy, no question. Are the majority? I know the drop out rate is high. Is that because they know they can't take care of themselves on dives and are afraid to continue? I suspect it is. I've encountered lots of divers who were not happy with their too fast instruction.

And yet, they are willing to walk away without trying to continue their education. Its not like more advanced training isn't available. Sure, OW could be extended to encompass everything it should cover or it can be modular with the expectation that all modules should be completed in a timely manner.

Well, maybe advanced training isn't available. I notice that LDSs don't schedule AOW or specialties at the frequency of OW.

I agree that there is a huge drop-out rate. I don't think it is a bad thing. The world simply doesn't need the better part of a million new divers each and every year. I guess if I owned a dive resort or a fleet of dive boats, I might change my point of view.

Richard

 

[TSandM]

If I could afford to dive in Thailand or the Maldives, I certainly wouldn't dive in Monterey.

Funny . . . I have the money (and the time) to dive Thailand or the Maldives, but I'm headed back to Monterey in May because it's some of the best diving I've ever done, anywhere!

 

[mongodives]

based on the poll it appears the majority of us believe an OW certified diver should be able to plan and execute a dive without a DM or Instructor. AMAZING this level of agreement on SB.

 

[Walter]

by DAN statistics

DAN does not have the information to compile statistics. No one knows how many dives are being made. No one knows how many divers there are. DAN does have some of the accidents reported to them, but not all. DAN has no idea how many close calls and rescues are made. It's more than you might imagine. The most rescues I've made in one day is 12. I once had to rescue the same guy 5 times in one weekend.

The stated goal of the PADI OW course is to produce entry level divers who are capable of diving in conditions similar or better than those in which they trained.

They meet that goal if conditions similar or better than those in which they trained includes having a DM/instructor to watch out for them. If it doesn't, it often falls far short of the stated goal.

Sure, OW could be extended to encompass everything it should cover or it can be modular with the expectation that all modules should be completed in a timely manner.

Most of what is left out of many OW classes is never included in later classes.