The Philosophy of Diver Training

[The Chairman]

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.

No, you don't want people d(r)iving if they can't perform like a paramedic. Let's get them a bit of experience behind the wheel of a car BEFORE you put them behind the wheel of an ambulance.

The real difference in philosophy is this: Those who want to make Scuba fun, easy and quick as opposed to those who want to make it arduous, hard and long. There is no way to make someone competent to rescue another diver CONSISTENTLY after only a dozen dives. However, people are able to dive SAFELY and INDEPENDENTLY after only a handful of dives. Can recovery of an unconscious diver be taught at this point? Sure. Will they have the experience to be able to do it under duress? Probably not. Should they forgo gaining more time with an instructor with AOW and then really learning rescue? Of course not. All of the agencies ENCOURAGE divers to go from OW, through AOW and Rescue and all the way to Dive Master. Why cut corners? So you can say that your course is the baddest one around?

Modular training is great. Learn what you want to learn AS YOU NEED IT. Not interested in becoming a "DCBC Macho Diver"? Then go take the FUN course. That's the joy of America: we get to choose how we want to be trained. The fun course WAS fun, but now you want more? Here ya go!

 

[DCBC]

No, you don't want people d(r)iving if they can't perform like a paramedic. Let's get them a bit of experience behind the wheel of a car BEFORE you put them behind the wheel of an ambulance.

The real difference in philosophy is this: Those who want to make Scuba fun, easy and quick as opposed to those who want to make it arduous, hard and long. There is no way to make someone competent to rescue another diver CONSISTENTLY after only a dozen dives. However, people are able to dive SAFELY and INDEPENDENTLY after only a handful of dives. Can recovery of an unconscious diver be taught at this point? Sure. Will they have the experience to be able to do it under duress? Probably not. Should they forgo gaining more time with an instructor with AOW and then really learning rescue? Of course not. All of the agencies ENCOURAGE divers to go from OW, through AOW and Rescue and all the way to Dive Master. Why cut corners? So you can say that your course is the baddest one around?

Modular training is great. Learn what you want to learn AS YOU NEED IT. Not interested in becoming a "DCBC Macho Diver"? Then go take the FUN course. That's the joy of America: we get to choose how we want to be trained. The fun course WAS fun, but now you want more? Here ya go!

It would seem that you have something against paramedic buddies. Interesting.

What I'm saying, is that if you accept the responsibility to dive with someone as a Buddy, I would expect that you are actually competent to render assistance in a safe manner, should the need arise. You would seem to prefer to refrain from training a diver to be a competent Buddy. If that's what you feel is required, great. I just disagree.

It would also appear that you feel that a buddy who cannot help his partner is able to dive in an independent manner. Again we disagree. Considering that 96% of the divers poled expect that a diver be trained to dive independently, I anxiously await how they will define "independence."

I believe that I owe it to my students to make sure they have the basic skill-sets to dive safely. From Day 1 it's important to be competent to act as a functional member of a Buddy team (not simply be an observer) and be able to dive independently, without the assistance of an instructor or DM. They don't have to wait until they take 3 courses before they obtained the necessary skills-sets. The risk that they would assume while they were diving up until they completed course 3 is simply unacceptable in my book. We define "the minimum skill-sets to dive safely" differently.

Although people have fun taking the course, it's not all about "fun." Diving can be dangerous and people die every year doing it. All too often, it's because of "diver error" and I wonder how much of it is attributable to inadequate training.

 

[TechBlue]

No, you don't want people d(r)iving if they can't perform like a paramedic. Let's get them a bit of experience behind the wheel of a car BEFORE you put them behind the wheel of an ambulance.

The real difference in philosophy is this: Those who want to make Scuba fun, easy and quick as opposed to those who want to make it arduous, hard and long. There is no way to make someone competent to rescue another diver CONSISTENTLY after only a dozen dives. However, people are able to dive SAFELY and INDEPENDENTLY after only a handful of dives. Can recovery of an unconscious diver be taught at this point? Sure. Will they have the experience to be able to do it under duress? Probably not. Should they forgo gaining more time with an instructor with AOW and then really learning rescue? Of course not. All of the agencies ENCOURAGE divers to go from OW, through AOW and Rescue and all the way to Dive Master. Why cut corners? So you can say that your course is the baddest one around?

Modular training is great. Learn what you want to learn AS YOU NEED IT. Not interested in becoming a "DCBC Macho Diver"? Then go take the FUN course. That's the joy of America: we get to choose how we want to be trained. The fun course WAS fun, but now you want more? Here ya go!

First off I am having a hard time with the personal level this thread has taken.

Secondly I believe that we are all about teaching scuba to be a fun sport which doesn't necessarily equate with "easy".

Thirdly reguarding the "modular" approach I have seen divers whipped through the entire process to become DM candidates because they then become free "tank monkeys" and the like, chances are in a rescue situation they would be as useful as tits on a bull.

If they are provided better and more consistent training starting with OW and then progressing they have a better chance of absorbing the information and being able to perform as required should the situation require it.

Quite simple, non militaristic but disciplined training that builds better divers, what's the rush??

 

[The Chairman]

So you are suggesting that the problem is endemic? Some shops turn out stellar divers and others do not, using the very same tools. Why blame the tool?

Are economics a BIG factor? Sure. I can't afford a screwdriver, so I use a hammer to drive in that wood screw. Are there issues? I can assure you, they aren't the hammer's fault. Now, someone want's to wax philosophical and he's complaining about standards for hammers. If I used a hammer properly, I would be a bit incensed about someone preaching thatif you use a hammer, you will surely die. It just don't pass the sniff test for me. It stinks of bashing hammer people.

 

[TechBlue]

So you are suggesting that the problem is endemic? Some shops turn out stellar divers and others do not, using the very same tools. Why blame the tool?

Are economics a BIG factor? Sure. I can't afford a screwdriver, so I use a hammer to drive in that wood screw. Are there issues? I can assure you, they aren't the hammer's fault. Now, someone want's to wax philosophical and he's complaining about standards for hammers. If I used a hammer properly, I would be a bit incensed about someone preaching thatif you use a hammer, you will surely die. It just don't pass the sniff test for me. It stinks of bashing hammer people.

No I did not say that, I categorically state that the Mickey D approach to scuba training is unsuitable and does not produce quality divers. If you use a hammer to drive a screw you are a butcher.

For example I would say that divers and DM candidates are the "tools" coming out of a shop the quality of the tool depends on the forge, process and quality of materials used. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

 

[InTheDrink]

I think the problem is that a lot of the time, divers are not being churned out really able to manage the basics. I believe this to be a function of either hours, instructor-student ratios or both.

It can be mitigated by Instructors that put in more time than the syllabus demands but that surely is a failing of the syllabus.

I'm all for quick and fun learning. I just think some of the agencies have erred a little strongly on the quick side and a little weakly on the learning side.

J

 

[The Chairman]

The "Mickey D Approach". Wow. Now that's condescending, and you wonder why many of us get upset when terms like that are used?

Divers and DMs are not tools: they are products. We use tools and craftsmanship to create our products.

Some pieces of furniture are built without nails!

Consumer) WOW! What superb craftsmanship! What a fine specimen of wood! The fit and finish are AWESOME... give me a hundred of these at $99.00 each.

Industry) A hundred? Do you know how long it takes to produce this handmade widget, with out the use of electricity? It's gonna cost you a couple of thousand dollars for this table.

Consumer) But, I only have a $100.

At which point a decision has to be made. Can we make this cheaper if we use some electric hand tools and some screws? Sure! Great! Now we have the cost down to $500.00!

Consumer) But, I only have a $100.

Yet another decision has to be made. What if we used something that can MASS produce the cutting (like the internet) and reduce the labor needed to produce a widget? Now, we have the cost down to $200.

Consumer) I only have a $100 on me, but I can get the rest!

The market is shaping our industry. Quick, fun and easy will probably weed out the slow, pedantic and hard. Snap! It already has! People will get more training as they see that they need it. It doesn't seem that most buy into getting an epically long class just to soothe some egos.

 

[InTheDrink]

The "Mickey D Approach". Wow. Now that's condescending, and you wonder why many of us get upset when terms like that are used?

In fairness, if you're going to throw stones, POW Warrior stuff etc. I'd suggest you grow your skin a little thicker when you get the Mickey D treatment.

Both comments (POV, McD) try to belittle the view of the other side and neither, in my opinion, are in any way helpful.

J

 

[TechBlue]

The "Mickey D Approach". Wow. Now that's condescending, and you wonder why many of us get upset when terms like that are used?

No it is not condescending, it is the truth and I can't even believe that you raise this as a point of contention, the fact that you consider it acceptable to use a hammer to drive a screw tells me all I need to know about your finesse

Divers and DMs are not tools: they are products. We use tools and craftsmanship to create our products.

Again if you use a hammer to drive a screw you mutilate both the screw and the workpiece

Some pieces of furniture are built without nails!

Yes and it takes more time and effort or it just falls apart

Consumer) WOW! What superb craftsmanship! What a fine specimen of wood! The fit and finish are AWESOME... give me a hundred of these at $99.00 each.

Industry) A hundred? Do you know how long it takes to produce this handmade widget, with out the use of electricity? It's gonna cost you a couple of thousand dollars for this table.

Consumer) But, I only have a $100.

Then sorry I can't help you, have you tried McDonalds it's not the same quality but I believe that they can give you what you are looking for

At which point a decision has to be made. Can we make this cheaper if we use some electric hand tools and some screws? Sure! Great! Now we have the cost down to $500.00!

Consumer) But, I only have a $100.

As already stated, I am sorry but I cannot give you what you are asking for for that price

Yet another decision has to be made. What if we used something that can MASS produce the cutting (like the internet) and reduce the labor needed to produce a widget? Now, we have the cost down to $200.

Doesn't this sound like a swan song?

Consumer) I only have a $100 on me, but I can get the rest!

The market is shaping our industry. Quick, fun and easy will probably weed out the slow, pedantic and hard. Snap! It already has! People will get more training as they see that they need it. It doesn't seem that most buy into getting an epically long class just to soothe some egos.

No by going for the high volume low profit you created your own nightmare and now you want to try and justify it and pretend that you are still providing the same quality which by your anology you have demonstrated that it is not possible. Remember the triangle fast, cheap and quality doesn't happen something has to give

There will always be people that appreciate quality and fine craftsmanship and will be ready to pay for it, just as their will always be people flocking to IKEA to talk to all those nice people in yellow shirts and because they are so big and strong they portray an image that is not quite real but it works most of the time until you try and move the furniture and it falls apart.

You seem locked in on this epically long scenario what exactly is your rush?

 

[hg frogman]

I thought my previous post would be the last, but I feel compelled to post once again here before flying away tomorrow morning. I am talking about (French) CMAS and PADI because I know both intimately, but please don't consider this post as an argument between these two agencies. My point is something else.

1) First issue is training. Full PADI training is OWD-AOWD-RescueDiver-MasterScubaDiver. Full (French) CMAS training is CMAS*-CMAS**-CMAS*** (I exclude the guide rating which is ****). Both full trainings represent quite similar time and number of dives: whatever difference there may be is less than 25%.

2) Second issue is experience: number of dives, and the different places where one has been diving. Swell and currents are as important as depth, coldness, and visibility.

3) Third issue is commitment: one wants to improve oneself, or not ? One learns from one's previous experiences, or not ?

4) In my opinion, provided that the training was up to the standards, and that the students didn't rush from a level to the next, fully-trained (French) CMAS and PADI divers with same commitment and enough experience (say 150+ dives with a good variety of conditions/environments) are both able to dive independently, within the limits of their training and experience.

5) One difference is that (French) CMAS** or *** divers can undertake deco air dives, while PADI is no-deco only.

6) Another difference is that stepping from (French) CMAS* to CMAS** is kind of a shock (but some people like it so) while PADI training is smoother all along (but some people like it so).

7) If it was as big as PADI, probably CMAS would have the same issues (or maybe more) with consistency/quality of its training all around the world; economics and QA concerns being what they are. For me this is the main problem (and not the training standards) but I already addressed economics and QA a lot in this thread, enough about it. Suffice to say than bashing PADI does not provide any solution.

8) Time matters. It still takes 10 minutes to boil an egg (as it has already been said about some decompression models ).