The Philosophy of Diver Training

[Diver0001]

Will the miracles never stop! LOL

 

[Diver0001]

In 2002, there was no minimum number of hours, although 31 hours were recommended.

Still is. I wrote this somewhere else in the thread too but he keeps repeating 27 despite being corrected.

I don't know what to call that.

R..

 

[caseybird]

I begged you guys not to get dragged into this thread...
Precisely nothing accomplished.

 

[JeffG]

Be that as it may, we do not have children together.

are you sure?

 

[hg frogman]

One of the most interesting experiences I had when I first moved to Europe was to dive off of a boat full of BSAC (CMAS) divers. I had a great time diving with them but I was quite surprised, because I had read on the internet about how good their training was, to see how chaotic and sloppy they looked under water. Maybe it was that one particular club but it goes to show you that just like in the PADI system, it depends mostly on the instructor, I guess.

I mostly agree with what you say. I am not saying that CMAS** divers are the best divers ever. In France and abroad I have already noticed that quite a few CMAS** (or even higher) are far from having a perfect trim or buoyancy control. Quite a few are messy with their equipment. Quite a few don't pay enough attention to the UW environment and hit the ground with their fins, hands, or full body even (maybe because there are no delicate corals where they train ? Anyway they need special initial briefings when you have them as guests in tropical locations).

And I have seen excellent PADI divers. When they have been adequately trained it seems to me that these divers often have a finer, more subtle, buoyancy control or underwater behaviour than the aforementioned CMAS divers, but I haven't seen enough to state it as a rule.

I also agree upon the importance of the instructor (edit : added afterwards : everything else being the same, ie for a given course, or for the choice between similar courses. end edit)

But for me, the point is, there are certified divers that show extremely poor diving skills. I have detailed this (and the main reasons behind it IMO) already in this thread, and I won't repeat myself.

None of these extremely poorly skilled divers is a CMAS** diver. Period.

 

[InTheDrink]

Be that as it may, we do not have children together.

So you say...

 

[Diver0001]

are you sure?

LOL

Now answer me this.... Which one of those guys is the PADI instructor and which one is CMAS?

LOL

A picture is worth a thousand words and that one just summed up this whole thread...

 

[JeffG]

Which one of those guys is the PADI instructor?

The one with big ears.

 

[InTheDrink]

I mostly agree with what you say. I am not saying that CMAS** divers are the best divers ever. In France and abroad I have already noticed that quite a few CMAS** (or even higher) are far from having a perfect trim or buoyancy control. Quite a few are messy with their equipment. Quite a few don't pay enough attention to the UW environment and hit the ground with their fins, hands, or full body even (maybe because there are no delicate corals where they train ? Anyway they need special initial briefings when you have them as guests in tropical locations).

And I have seen excellent PADI divers. When they have been adequately trained it seems to me that these divers often have a finer, more subtle, buoyancy control than the aforementioned CMAS divers, but I haven't seen enough to state it as a rule.

The point is, there are entry-level certified divers that show extremely poor diving skills. I have detailed this (and the main reasons behind it IMO) already in this thread, and I won't repeat myself.

None of these extremely poorly skilled divers is a CMAS** diver. Period.

I did hold CMAS/BSAC coming from cold UK waters in high regard until I came across a group last year and that put paid to it. Being generous they were very average. In fact they were pretty ****. Anyhow though...

Nevermind it's the Instructor, not the Agency - in fact, it's actually the Individual.

The difference I believe is in what resources you make available for that individual and their awareness of those resources. Those resources can be things like SB (for those that 'discover' it) or an instructor that gives students the tools to improve. Or it can be an agency that systemises these continuous improvements which I don't believe PADI does (nor perhaps should do).

Ideally training standards would err towards the end of caution, but of course they err towards the side of maximum revenue. That's capitalism. Or egalitarianism. It's definitely something. PADI would appear to have come to the conclusion that it's the most amount of money for the least amount of training. I'm not bashing PADI in particular - they're just the only agency I've trained with. And even with PADI - it's not the course content that's a problem - it's the time devoted to it. The skills covered in OW are perfectly fine. They just don't allow enough time for a person to assimilate these skills.

People dying is definitely unpleasant. But it does happen. It will happen more frequently in higher risk activities. Diving is one of those (even if it's not particularly high risk). We're not going to iron out all deaths in diving, no matter how many posts here. If it didn't have a air of risk then people wouldn't do it. I come from a climbing background and there's two kinds of it (to be very broad stroke) - bolted sport climbing and natural protection climbing/mountaineering. The former is extremely safe and very technically challenging. For many people, me included, it offers nowhere near the level of satisfaction of old school climbing where a mistake could be fatal. Of course the two strands blend together sometimes but at the end of the day, the reward you get from a risky activity is the risk itself.

Anyhow I'm rambling. Again.

The agency discussion is getting terribly old. Really.

If someone wants to give something useful back to newbies then a dedicated sticky about ways to improve (skills drills etc.) would go a lot further than the general rants.

J

 

[InTheDrink]

Perhaps I am, but I don't try to be and when pointed out to me and explained how one of my posts is rude, I try to change. Help me avoid being rude and I'll work with you.

I would say that your biggest issue is intimidation. Certainly when I was new on this board and posted a particular event your comments were pithy and scathing and when I responded you never responded back. Not that I hold a grudge or anything

I've never dived with you but I'd imagine you're a pretty fine diver. Infinitely better than I, although that wouldn't be hard. But when new-ish people come on line asking questions, and although I've no problem with the school of hard knocks, your very direct approach I think might not always be the best.

The counter argument to that of course is that your very direct approach made me analyse in much more detail the course of my action so I would also say that your engagement is very welcome but perhaps some of the ways you do it could use a little finesse-ing shall we say.

Ultimately though your knowledge, experience and contribution is extremely welcome - please just don't alienate yourself because you're good at arguing a point! Winning isn't always the desirable outcome in a discussion.

J