The Philosophy of Diver Training

[Diver0001]

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 guess it's a matter of degree and motives, Guy.

DCBC consistently makes heavy use of 1/2 truths, misinformation and displaying opinion as fact, with what I believe to be a deliberate motive to turn people off of the agency.

If I didn't think his motives were deliberate then I could just write him off as an angry old man and leave it at that.

However, what would appear to be the case is that he at some point in the past about 18 years ago (or more) become highly cynical and disillutioned due to a conflict he had with PADI regarding his habit of issuing PADI cards for programmes that he had modified so much in their scope that they no longer bore any resemblance to the PADI courses for which those cards were being issued. PADI had an issue with that, evendently it escalated to the point where they couldn't resolve their difference of opinion he quit the system.

He often describes that series of events as being "censored" or "censured" by PADI and he brings it up again and again in this thread evidently as a means to add validity to his opinion about the system and how the system sucks.

I believe that this series of events (it's seldom one thing) laid a foundation of a grudge that he has been carrying for 18 years that comes out in threads like this, but also in many threads across many parts of the board as a strong undertone of repeating over and over again that PADI is somehow intent on forcing instructors to certify divers that are not ready to be certified. His motive is apparently to convince people to write off the system, the way he did.

In post 317 and the exchange that preceeded it, you can clearly see him saying that if he can even convince one person to write the system off then he has accomplished his mission. In post 317 he very nearly literally spells out his motives for us.

For my part I don't not believe in his methods because I believe they are deliberately engineered to be decietful and misleading and I have an allergy for that.

To show you the difference, there are other users on this board like Thalassamania who have equally negative views about PADI and say things like

- 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.

but are clear that those are opinions and are willing to discuss them for what they are.

In those discussions, if someone becomes convinced that Thal is right and they begin to share those opinions, then that's just the way things go. I don't share his opinions because I believe they are sweeping generalizations based on observations of some crappy divers (which is, in fact, an issue and serves to both support his statement and to confuse the issue). In latin they even have a cute name for what Thal does. These are called "dicto simpliciter" fallacies which Socrates identified 2500 years ago as one of the fundamental breakdowns in logical reasoning.

But Thal believes it and we discuss it over and over. Whatever. That doesn't bother me so much. What bothers me is when someone brings 1/2 truths and deliberate misinformation to the table. That's what I don't like and am not willing to just let pass without being confronted.

As for the words "lie" and "bash". We can split hairs about definitions of those things but it's of marginal importance to what's actually happening on this thread.

R..

 

[Diver0001]

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.

So do I!

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?

Regarding respect. I want to be clear, since I believe this may be somewhat directed at me, that I don't have an issue with Wayne as a person. I also firmly believe based on the intensity and passion I read in his posts that he's a very thorough and dedicated instructor who probably gets excellent results in the system he's using now. The system that seems to fit his style.

We all need to drop it and move on.

In the last part of this thread, I've seen Wayne trying to get himself out of the firing line when being confronted about using 1/2 truths and misdirection to push his cynical agenda about PADI but I haven't seen him back off of that position. I don't know if there is anything else that can be done to put the message out there more clearly than it has been, but I'm not automatically willing to declare this "water under the bridge" and just go back to letting him continue with this here and on other threads.

Let's move on to points that matter.

I was kind of hoping that we could deep out the QA and the "fox guarding the hen house" angle a bit. Personally I see this as the main reason why we have so many badly trained beginners around. What do you think about that, Walter?

R..

 

[hg frogman]

I was kind of hoping that we could deep out the QA and the "fox guarding the hen house" angle a bit. Personally I see this as the main reason why we have so many badly trained beginners around.

If I understand right, QA stands for Quality Insurance, and you mean that the main issue regarding badly trained beginners is in really applying the standards (ie in doing the "full OW course"), and in making sure there are no cheap/crap dive operations deliberately doing sub-standards courses ?

If that's what you mean, I fully agree, and that entirely matches my experience.

There are connections between QA and standards, like the number of dives in the course, the time elapsed between the dives, the total number of days of the course, the ratios ... and for this, IMO some standards could be significantly improved if quality of the training was the main goal.

But all of this is a complicated issue that deserves another thread IMO.

 

[Diver0001]

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.

This is where I hope BoulderJohn will jump in. He's a real expert in these things when it comes to how education develops over time. I dont think either of us are.

With respect to the altitude example. ....snip.... 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.

BoulderJohn mentioned a couple of posts ago how he does this within the system. I think there may be a miscommunication but I don't think there is a contradiction.

R..

 

[Diver0001]

If I understand right, QA stands for Quality Insurance, and you mean that the main issue regarding badly trained beginners is in really applying the standards (ie in doing the "full OW course"), and making sure there are no crap dive operations deliberately lowering these standards in the field ?

It that's what you mean, I fully agree, and that 100% matches my experience.

In main lines that's what I mean, yes.

To detail it a bit:

There are are two kinds of "quality" that in theory should be checked by QA

First is the quality related to the process of delivery (ie.... did the instructor follow standards?)

and second the quality related to the product it'self (ie.... did the instructor create safe divers?)

the QA process we have now only looks at the first type of quality, namely, if the instructor followed standards. The quality of the product (how well they can dive) is never considered in the QA process we have now. It is assumed that "following standards" will automatically lead to a safe and competent diver.

However that logic breaks down because the instructor isn't held accountable anywhere in the system for not teaching "mastery" of skills to a bar that the agency believes is required.

How the heck does that happen?

The definition of "mastery" is, namely, vague and requires the instructor themselves to interpret what should be "reasonably expected" from a student and it requires the instructor to be the judge of their own results. Clearly some people's expectations are very low and using this wiggle room they can get away with creating divers who can't dive.

And I'll point out again that this isn't only an issue for PADI. Most agencies do it like this.

There are severa ways you could tighten it up.

One would be to increase the minimum bar for standards to such a point that the wiggle room for the lazy instructor is taken out (the approach commonly discussed on the forums)

One would be to QA the product quality itself and remove the fox guarding the hen house effect of letting the instructor be the judge of his own results. (what Thal was just suggesting)

and one would be to vastly tighten down the critera for becoming an instructor in the first place so the lazy instructors don't get in the system to start with (ie the GUE approach, which is maybe shared by one or two other niche players as well).

At least, that's how I see it. I'm curious how other people see this.

R..

 

[Kingpatzer]

Personally, With DVD's being cheap, computers with RW drives being ubiquitous and the Ikelight JVC camera being under $500, I see a potential for a real way of addressing the product aspect of PADI's QA (should PADI be interested in doing so).

Require that every PADI instructor film the confined water portions of their course. Burn a DVD with the raw takes, and send it to PADI as part of the packet.

PADI can then semi-randomly select a dozen or classes to watch each month and determine if the students have mastered the skills being taught. I say semi-random as Instructors who have had a class observed in the last year should probably drop out of the pile so that other instructors can get a chance to be observed, for example.

The DVD's could also serve as evidence against potential lawsuits as the course would be recorded and usable to show if a student was properly trained or not.

PADI can then easily begin to provide real feedback to the instructors as to what mastery is and is not.

Now, I can see reasons why PADI would choose not to do this. It would require a full time person to spend their days viewing courses, which would kind of suck as a job, and that person's decisions should not be unilateral, so there would need to be another person watching at least some footage as well. And there would be a cost to PADI in terms of overhead to manage the inventory of DVD's.

 

[The Chairman]

Not to mention additional personnel in the pool taking the video.

 

[D_B]

I think that raising the criteria for becoming an instructor would produce the best results.

Micromanaging the tests and results needed to pass an OW student is not the way to go , it complicates and removes the instructors input into what it takes to make a safe diver in the conditions that they are diving in

Edit: I'll add that a good instructor is a wealth of info that should not be hindered in his abilities to impart that knowledge on his students

 

[Kingpatzer]

Not to mention additional personnel in the pool taking the video.

Underwater tripods for the win!

 

[Diver0001]

Now, I can see reasons why PADI would choose not to do this. It would require a full time person to spend their days viewing courses, which would kind of suck as a job, and that person's decisions should not be unilateral, so there would need to be another person watching at least some footage as well. And there would be a cost to PADI in terms of overhead to manage the inventory of DVD's.

There is probably an easier, cheaper and more effective way to do this by

a) Making sure that CD's on the top levels are all on the same page about how to interpret "reasonably expect"

and

b) requiring instructors to be audited by a CD once in a while.

In other words, good old fashioned peer reviews, which is how product specialists like computer programmers review and refine the quality of their work over time.

It wouldn't stop every mistake, but it would help stop the slipping baseline problem we have now.

R..