The Philosophy of Diver Training

[DCBC]

In the standards it's expressed like this:

Conduct risk assessments for your student divers by evaluating diver, environmental, equipment, physical and psychological variables (as
described in PADI’s Guide to Teaching) during PADI courses and
programs. Always err on the side of caution and conservatism when
making decisions and applying judgment in your PADI programs

What PADI is saying here is that you have to account for the local environment when you teach any PADI programme.

Thanks for this information. It would seem that PADI is specifying that the instructor conduct risk assessments in order to keep the students safe during training. This is excellent, but it doesn't speak to the point I was making; which was that the instructor train/evaluate the student in such a manner that they possess the skill-sets and knowledge necessary to safely dive in local conditions before they are certified. What is required of the instructor and what is required of the student, are different things.

 

[boulderjohn]

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.

R..

Please refer to my short treatise on the evaluation of performance assessments.

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.

.

This would approximate the process used by education evaluation systems (described above) to ensure quality.

 

[boulderjohn]

I don't know how your jurisdiction does things but in Canada the only possible non-diver that would decide the instructors fate, is the Judge hearing the case. If the instructor teaches for Agency X, it's likely that there may be an Expert Witness from that Agency. What side that Witness is on is yet to be determined.

Sorry. I did not realize that Canada did not use the jury system. In America, we have something called juries, and people who are deemed to have prior knowledge of something like this will not be allowed on one.

John, it comes down to what's reasonable. If the local conditions involved high tides, the diver trained died as a direct result and the instructor didn't teach tide tables because it wasn't required in the Standards, would the Agency say that the Instructor was right, or that the diver wasn't trained for local conditions? It's impossible to say. What will the Judge see as "reasonable" in the cold light of the court?

All agencies other than PADI that I'm aware, encourage instructors to teach past the Standards for this reason. I believe that many Standards are set with vacation land in-mind. That's why Agency Standards are called "minimum standards" in other agencies.

It just baffles me that you continue to say that, all evidence to the contrary. PADI says divers have to be prepared to dive the local conditions in which they do their OW work. If that requires tide information, then an instructor who does not provide it would be remiss. When I conduct open water dives in Colorado, I show how to adjust for altitude. I don't mention tides because the effect of tides on Aurora Reservoir is minimal.

 

[Diver0001]

What is required of the instructor and what is required of the student, are different things.

Very true, but there are two part to that, of course.

Assessment of risk and mitigation of those risks.

If an instructor sees that conditions are bad and chooses to mitigate that by adding extra supervision (maybe as much as 2:1 or 1:1) then that would be consistent with standards, even though standards set the minimum bar at 8:1

This is also consistent with the approach to buoyancy control or the use of drysuits in my OW course that I outlined a few days ago (1.5-2km of swimming instead of 10 metres).

Likewise for altitude diving. If there is an additional risk of DCS if you don't teach students about how to adjust the tables then the prudent thing to do would be to teach them what they need to know, as Boulderjohn pointed out.

All of these things are things that connect and flow from this principle of assessing the risk and... it follows... doing something to limit the risks.

There are also cases where the mitigation approach doesn't seem to connect with the additional risk, like if someone were to say "our water is cold and therefore they need to practice ... I don't know... how to breathe off of a tank without a regulator or whatever....". When you do that, then I think PADI wouldn't see it as being relevant to the risk you're trying to address and therefore a significant step away from embellishment and into changing the standard according to your own convictions regardless of how important the instructor might think it is.

Naturally there's a grey areas here too.

R..

 

[boulderjohn]

test
noun

A way of discovering, by questions or practical activities, what someone knows, or what someone or something can do.

What formal documentary evidence do you keep that will affirm that you have "tested" the Student? Do you do this for any "enhancements" to the training standards that you make? How about other things that you add (tide tables for example)? Is this allowed by the training Agency? Please provide specifics.

Why is it necessary to have a formal assessment of every blessed thing you put in the course?

When we talk about equipment, I take them through the shop and show them all the options available to them. They see jacket BCDs, Back inflate BCDs, and Backplate and wings. They see all manner of fins. We talk about different kinds of masks. We discuss computer choices. I show them different kinds of wet suits and dry suits. I show them the difference between different alternate air setups, including long hoses and bungeed necklaces.

I do not give them a final exam on this to document that I did it. It is not mentioned in the standards.

Wayne, it is not necessary to have a written exam on every bit of value you add to the course. Furthermore, it is actually possible for a student to learn something without a formal written exam.

 

[Diver0001]

There's a third. Is the established process the best method of achieving the goal of creating safe divers?

Good point. There doesn't seem to be much "sharpening of the blade" happening that I can see.

Maybe at some level people analyze accident stats to see what can be learned by it, but as a simple plebian in this game if it's happening then it's invisible to me.

R..

 

[boulderjohn]

Originally Posted by boulderjohn
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.

But that depends, doesn't it, on the judgment of the instructor providing the instruction?

Let's say that Instructor A believes students should leave his program able to plan and perform dives in challenging conditions without assistance. Sounds like a noble goal.

Accordingly, he takes them to a site in the North Atlantic on a day when the seas are rough and the visibility poor. He tells them to plan and execute a shore dive in which they use their compasses to navigate a a rectangle, turning the dive on the second corner at a PSI level that they believe will get them back to starting point with about 500 PSI. The instructor will remain on shore throughout to ensure that they are able to dive independently.

Two of the divers never get back, and the families sue.

If that instructor is in your agency, will they back the instructor?

If so, and they ask you to serve as the expert witness in his defense, will you do so?

 

[DCBC]

Sorry. I did not realize that Canada did not use the jury system. In America, we have something called juries, and people who are deemed to have prior knowledge of something like this will not be allowed on one.

NP. In Canada, juries are reserved for criminal matters.

PADI says divers have to be prepared to dive the local conditions in which they do their OW work. If that requires tide information, then an instructor who does not provide it would be remiss.

As a matter of clarity, on an OW c/o dive, I don't provide tide information to the students. They have the tide charts and it's the job of the student to accurately complete the calculations and plan the dive. We collectively do a site assessment and their calculations are checked. So your statement that "an instructor who does not provide it would be remiss" seems insufficient. Perhaps this wasn't your intent.

Forgive me, but the discussion I had with PADI HQ gave me the distinct impression that they didn't want an instructor to cover anything that was outside of the basics of the OW program. Up until that time, I was proceeding in what would appear to be the same way as you are currently doing. I was shocked to get such a call.

I'm not saying that this is still the case with PADI; I don't know. If the clock was turned back, I could easily be having a similar discussion with another PADI Instructor who received a call from HQ and I'd be amazed why he wasn't agreeing with me either There was nothing in the Standards at the time that I could look at and see I was doing anything wrong! That was not the position of HQ however, who interpreted the standards differently than I did.

This is why I've requested specific wording that can convince me that in-fact the Standards are clear. More than one Instructor has referred to the "gray area." How can you be sure that you have an accurate understanding of what is, or is not allowed (no insult intended). Someone saying, I think it's this way, or this is what I've always done, just doesn't provide what's necessary. I did it a certain way for 17 years and thought I was right before receiving the call.

 

[Walter]

But that depends, doesn't it, on the judgment of the instructor providing the instruction?

Let's say that Instructor A believes students should leave his program able to plan and perform dives in challenging conditions without assistance. Sounds like a noble goal.

Accordingly, he takes them to a site in the North Atlantic on a day when the seas are rough and the visibility poor. He tells them to plan and execute a shore dive in which they use their compasses to navigate a a rectangle, turning the dive on the second corner at a PSI level that they believe will get them back to starting point with about 500 PSI. The instructor will remain on shore throughout to ensure that they are able to dive independently.

Two of the divers never get back, and the families sue.

If that instructor is in your agency, will they back the instructor?

If so, and they ask you to serve as the expert witness in his defense, will you do so?

Bad example, John. SEI encourages instructors to add to classes. SEI does not encourage instructors to violate standards. It is a violation of standards to send students in the water on checkout dives by themselves.

I would not expect any agency to back an instructor that violated standards.

I would inform the defense attorney that the instructor violated SEI standards.

 

[boulderjohn]

Bad example, John. SEI encourages instructors to add to classes. SEI does not encourage instructors to violate standards. It is a violation of standards to send students in the water on checkout dives by themselves.

I would not expect any agency to back an instructor that violated standards.

I would inform the defense attorney that the instructor violated SEI standards.

So the instructor used poor judgment in his additions to the course content.

Is it possible to use similar bad judgment in making such decisions without violating specific standards, as that one section of my scenario did? In other words, would you defend an instructor who added instruction that you thought to be dangerous and unnecessary if it did not violate a specific standard?