The Philosophy of Diver Training

[Guy Alcala]

No, I'm asking you how you're going to turn the clock back.

I agree with all the wrongs, including instructors also issuing certifications - a clear conflict of interest.

But what you wish is one thing - god there's so many things I wish for. But tell me about a plan to change the status quo and then I won't think you're just dreaming.
Good night (and this time I mean it! FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=")

Hah! Famous last words. There are many people who've argued on SB that the current business model of using cheap instruction as a loss-leader to sell equipment, is no longer viable with the availability of online dive equipment stores. I tend to agree, but I don't own or operate an LDS so will leave it up to the people who do to argue that out. I know that while I'm willing to pay 5, 10, occasionally 15 or sometimes even 25% more to handle/try on certain items before I buy them, I'm not willing to pay 50%-100% more, especially for items that require no advice or assistance from a salesperson/diver. That being the case, it may well be that instruction will be the driver on which an LDS will hang their profit, and that will require raising prices and improving the perceived quality/value of the instruction. And then, instructors will be able to make a living instructing, should they chose to.

And yes Scuba is different. It does require training and there's a market for that cos people don't take to breathing underwater well in general. I'm from a climbing background. No training apart from my Dad and then peers. It's different from Scuba, especially cos Scuba's an easy money maker: all comers welcome.

As the oldtimers on the board will tell you, Scuba 'training' didn't come into being for some time. Plenty of people learned by doing, just as many people started out rockclimbing by themselves or with a couple of buddies. It's only when the agencies set themselves up as gatekeepers to scuba and the LDS' accepted that (no C-card, no fill) that Scuba 'required' training. Which isn't to say it's not a good idea, but it's not as if you can't learn it by yourself. Indeed, if you're willing to buy your own compressor, you still don't need training if you're willing/able to only dive sites from shore or your own boat.

You don't get the same profile of people lining up for rock climbing or mountaineering - or looking at it another way; there's no market for it.
Scuba might be niche but the market is big enough to make it non-niche and to make selling training completely viable. That's the only thing you need to factor in to your equations.

Selling training for rockclimbing/mountaineering can be viable; I know several people who've made a living at it. But I agree that it's generally not the same demographic, at least among the vacation divers. The people who wish to dive locally (and who thus tend to be more serious about it and dive more) have to be willing to dive in less ideal conditions than the vacation divers. As a result, they also tend to be more physically fit, because much of the time they have to be.

Scuba is different, because of the bouyant nature of water lots of people that are overweight and/or out of shape can particpate in an adventure sport. They can't easily do that in climbing for instance. That helps create a bigger market. Throw in failrly easy certification and scuba becomes bigger than a small niche. Plus the appeal of warm beach vacations makes it a natural add-on for people to participate once or twice a year. Not saying any of that is right or wrong, just the way it is.

As stated above, I agree that the resort diver demographic is different from that of local divers. I disagree that recreational scuba diving, except at the most extreme, is an adventure sport. Technical/cave diving almost certainly is, because the level of risk and the amount of experience/training required to do so safely are in the same ballpark, and physical condition, while generally less important than a land adventure sport, nevertheless needs to be higher.

ISTM that Scuba may well _officially_ divide into the resort divers who're doing this as a once in a lifetime experience, and the serious divers. I'm glad to see that RSTC agencies like PADI and SSI have added resort diver courses (SSI Scuba Diver; is PADI's called the same?) that recognize this fact. That will allow them to upgrade the requirements for their OW classes to make sure that any graduate is qualified to be an independent diver, should they choose to do so. Unfortunately, IMO their current OW standards should be the requirement for the resort diver course.

If they choose not to do so, at least now there are other agencies which offer courses with higher entrance and 'graduation' requirements, and those of us who feel this is important can recommend them to people.

Guy

 

[Guy Alcala]

1) A swim test (swimming while wearing only speedos) does not always tell about underwater comfort/ability. I have known people that were professional swimmers and that weren't at ease at all with a regulator in their mouth, even after a few days (sort of phobia).

Which is why many of us involved in this discussion who believe that the RSTC standards are inadequate, think that free-diving training should precede scuba training. I know that having a reg in my mouth for scuba training was a non-event, but why should it have been? I'd been free-diving with a snorkel for decades before I took scuba training. Mask on/mask off/mask clearing skills? Same old same old. Getting neutral or negative by altering the amount of air held in my lungs? Check.

And I have seen very poor swimmers that were excellent divers.

Me too, but I regard them as the exception that proves the rule, and I've never seen any of them claim that being a poor swimmer made learning scuba easier.

2) For assessing stamina (which is a good idea) in the PADI OW course the student can choose between a 200 meters swim in speedos and a 300 meters swim with fins, mask and snorkel. I like students to choose the second option because I can both check their stamina and check/improve their finning and snorkeling.

3) It's better for the "man fallen in the sea" (from the boat) to be a good swimmer. It's hard from me to tell whether this only point should prevent bad swimmers with good stamina (and who are successful in staying 10' afloat) from undertaking scuba diving. Life is an adventure, after all.

You'll find many of us are adamantly against allowing students to do their swim test wearing M/F/S, because we regard being comfortable in the water sans gear (especially facial immersion) as a pre-requisite for when the fit hits the shan and you lose, or are unable to use some/all of your gear. Someone opined in another thread that anyone engaged in any water sport should be a competent swimmer, and I agree.

Guy

 

[DCBC]

Envisioning a world with the 100 hour OW course as the norm is very difficult because if it were the norm, sooner or later changes would likely be made to make it more accessible to the masses as it is today. Time/effort would get trimmed and we would be right back to where we are now. Realistically, i just can't see it any other way.

While i respect your opinion and passion for your position, unless you actually had some viable "master plan" that would mandate and enforce 100 hours classes ..... i just don't see it.

You don't have some evil, 100 hour master plan do you? Please don't tell me you work for the Fed.

I wouldn't suggest that all initial scuba programs be 100 hours. As I've mentioned, my course is 50 hours and in this period of time, the graduate is capable of diving independently in local conditions (some of the harshest on the planet) in a safe manner. This is not to say that a longer program wouldn't be beneficial, but it is not required.

Without going into every detail, it takes me 50 hours to achieve the goal. It may take another instructor less/more time to do so, but 50 hours seems to be about right for me. What is the goal? After completion, the Diver must complete all of the agency certification requirements and in-particular:

a) Possess good in-water ability (swim 400M front/side, 200M back, drownproof 15 minutes. 25M u/w swim, tread water 2/2/2 hands only/legs only/hands and feet, retrieve 10 lbs weight belt from the deep end)

b) Possesses a good knowledge of reading a dive site, recognize hazards and select an entry, exit and alternate exit from the water;

c) Properly plan a dive including being competent in the use of tide charts;

d) Effectively manage their gas consumption;

e) Effectively manage their buoyancy throughout the dive;

f) Effectively rescue their Buddy conscious/unconscious on the surface or under it;

g) Be competent at self-rescue and perform a CESA from 50 feet;

h) Communicate with their Buddy and dive within touching distance at all times;

i) Be able to share-air and buddy-breathe as a donor and receiver with or without a mask;

j) Be competent to dive with a member of my family.

If they can't perform this to my satisfaction, they aren't certified. I don't give up on anyone and as long as they are willing I'll work with them at no additional cost. I might add that I ran a similar course when I owned an LDS and made money; although not as much as my competitor who trained in half the time. The divers trained by the competition were not given the same skill-sets.

Although I may have forgotten something, what have I listed that you would not want to see in a buddy? What skill(s) would you feel is/are unnecessary for your son or daughter before they dive unsupervised in the North Atlantic? If the conditions were more ideal, what skills would you remove?

To answer your question, the only plan I have is to train safe divers that are competent to look after their buddy and dive unsupervised.

 

[InTheDrink]

Have a safe trip frogman.

+1

Have fun froggie

 

[Guy Alcala]

a) Possess good in-water ability (swim 400M front/side, 200M back, drownproof 15 minutes. 25M u/w swim,

<snip rest>

Wayne, are the students required to do the 25m U/W swim suit only, or M/F/S?

Guy

 

[Guy Alcala]

Quote:
Originally Posted by boulderjohn
By the way, that is how almost all dive instruction is done today. The term mastery is standard in such systems, and PADI's use of it is correct because it is using it in its educational context. Using the term in its non-educational definition is not appropriate.

<snip> That's a cop-out. Show me one dictionary entry for "mastery" that lines up with PADI's usage. People know what "mastery" means, it's not what PADI (or maybe even some "educators") pretend(s) that it means.

Originally posted by boulderjohn
Dictionaries reflect the definitions of terms as they are used by society. If a word is used a certain way consistently in a language, then it will eventually make it into a dictionary. New uses typically take about 20 years before they make it into a dictionary.

And by the way, it doesn't matter whether it does or not. An organization can choose to define a term for its purposes whenever it wants. It happens all the time.

I think your (boulderjohn's) argument would be valid if the term was only being used by educational professionals among themselves, all of whom understood that this was the meaning intended. But that's not the case, because the average dive instructor isn't an education 'professional' (yes, I know they're getting paid to teach, but that's not what I mean). They are unlikely to understand the nuance even if it's explained to them repeatedly (does PADI's instructor material do so?), and the same applies to their students and other divers to an even greater degree. When I hear or read that someone has mastered a subject, I'm in no doubt what that means to me, and what I expect from them. To take the first online definition that comes up, 'mastery' is

1. Possession of consummate skill.

2. The status of master or ruler; control: mastery of the seas.

3. Full command of a subject of study.

Obviously, #2 doesn't apply here. At the top, PADI may be using their own, in-house definition, but lower down and certainly externally they will be judged by the normally recognized definition, which is why an SSI/PADI 'Master Diver' cert is treated as a bad joke unless proven otherwise.

Guy

 

[DCBC]

<snip rest>

Wayne, are the students required to do the 25m U/W swim suit only, or M/F/S?

Guy

Hi Guy,

The in-water assessment is done in swim suit only. As some people are more positively buoyant than others, as long as their face is submerged it counts.

The course is broken-up into different stages or sections in confined-water which run in-conjunction with lecturers (including three written examinations involving general knowledge, decompression and tide tables):

< Preliminary: Swimming/in-water evaluation
< FMS: Evolution of all skills performing surface dives, kicks, mask clearing, doff & don, etc. (I believe every diver should be strong with FMS; it's much easier with an hour of air on your back).
< SCUBA: Evolution of all skills involving SCUBA; and
< Rescue: Tired diver, surface/sub-surface rescue, emergency preparation/equipment, first-aid and evacuation.

The last confined-water session is done with full equipment including exposure suits w/ gloves/mitts a full checkout is done to insure diver competence before the OW dive.

Openwater dives and evaluations. This includes planning, gas management, rescue and a full simulated evacuation of a victim.

Lectures and exams are 1.5 hours per evening once a week. The minimum pass on the exams are 80% (general) and 100% (decompression and tide). This is followed by 2 hours of pool. The course is usually 12 weeks long with a minimum of 8 hours of training/diving in Openwater (often longer).

 

[The Chairman]

3) If someone (adequately fit etc.) is motivated to really become a diver, he or she ultimately will be a diver.

How true, how true!

Training has been an obstacle for divers in the past. As pointed out, it did not start this way, as early on there were no Scuba Certification Agencies and the process was merely to learn from a mentor or a club. Some mentors provided 15-20 minutes of instruction. Heck, mine never got in the pool with me, and my friend and I did our first OW dive in Lake Underhill (1969) completely unsupervised. :shocked2:

Almost 30 years later, I finally got certified. I read the PADI book and aced the test (no lectures). Then we hit the pool and he realized that I had done this before. No, he wasn't a great instructor... BUT, he made sure I actually did everything to standards (like breathe off of a free flowing regulator). He actually thought the colors on the reefs changed at night, until I pointed out that the REAL difference was the flashlight in your hand. Snap! The man was not quick with the science, but he did maintain the minimum standards. I doubt that we spent more than 3 hours in the pool total, and then we went and did 4 dives. I might have had 10 hours of time with him in order to get certified (not counting travel). Were there holes in my training? Nothing fatal. My safety stops were more like safety pauses, and his answers for "why?" were often less than I needed.

So obviously, I stopped my learning right then and there... right? Of course not! I dove completely without incident for a year and a half and finally found ScubaBoard. Then I really learned to dive. I must say that I have learned more about diving HERE than in any classroom. In fact, quite often I come into a classroom knowing the protocols and techniques BECAUSE of our discussions here. It's amazing. I can tell right away if my instructor is good or bad. I can discern if he is up on the latest trends in teaching or if he is merely a GOI.

Now, since I have learned a lot here (as have many members), I guess I could make the claim that all divers should spend time here on ScubaBoard before they get their certification. Actually, I think that's a righteous idea, but I am CERTAIN that many peeps can learn to dive safely without ScubaBoard. We certainly add to their safety, but we are disposable.

The same can be said about the extra skills being offered as "essential". Sure, they add to the safety of the diver, but only marginally so. Push a driver through a "Drivers Safety Class" and you could make them a better and safer diver... until that cell phone hits their ear or they want to change the radio channel. IOW, you can't teach someone to be careful. I remember the first time I hit a puddle in a car. We had talked about skids and slides in Drivers Ed, but NOT LIKE THIS! Whoa nelly, that was a rush! That experience was invaluable in coming years in similar circumstances. Trying to extend that Drivers Ed class to the point where I was TRAINED and CERTIFIED to handle slides and skids would not be cost effective. Heck, I can opt out of driving in the rain if I want or I can build up my skills slowly.

So keep your pedantic classes. I wish you and your students well in them. I am certain that your methodology will never become mainstream as they are solutions in search of a problem you have yet to show exists. I love the fact that online academics has replaced the sage on the stage, and that now I get to focus on SKILLS in the pool and in OW. I think it's great that tables are being supplanted by PDCs. Technology enables us to do so much more and understand diving far better. Sure, it will rattle a few Dinosaurs that can't adapt and keep up with the rest of us. Sure, they will tell us that we will surely die and that's NOT the way we are supposed to learn.

Learning doesn't have to be hard, arduous or drawn out. It can be quite easy, fun and QUICK! Walter has already attested the types of students I turn out under the EFQ method. It's not rocket science, but you have to stop being constrained by your sacred cow methodologies. You have to want to really LEARN, INNOVATE and CHANGE. If/when you do, you'll look back on your arguments that push the tedious over efficiency and either cringe, cry or laugh.

 

[Walter]

Walter has already attested the types of students I turn out under the EFQ method.

Only as to how they look, not as to how they react under stress.

 

[DCBC]

Although we all may have drifted off topic on this thread from time-to-time, it's never too late to get back on-track. The purpose of this thread is not to discuss what instructors do, or do not teach. Rather to look at what the training philosophies of the certification agencies require to be taught.

Over 96% of the divers surveyed on this thread felt that the initial diver training program should prepare the diver to dive unsupervised by an Instructor or DM. To better comprehend what is meant by this statement, it's reasonable to understand what being prepared to dive unsupervised means to you?

Many of the certification agencies feel that a diver should be prepared to rescue his or her buddy from depth; other certification agencies do not. Perhaps this is one area worthy of discussion.

Do you think that a diver is qualified to dive unsupervised, if he cannot perform a sub-surface rescue of his buddy? What other skill-sets are required in your view?

Driving analogies have been used to compare driving instruction with diving instruction. In my view, not including rescue training in the initial diving program is similar to giving someone a driver's license and asking him to come back for further instruction to learn about red lights.

Please share your opinion on what should or should not be included in an Openwater course. How competent do you expect a new diver who you are diving with to be? What training agency(s) philosophy matches what you believe is required?