The Philosophy of Diver Training

[Crush]

How about this . . . prove you're not here to simply find fault with PADI. Spend a few dozen posts dissecting and critiquing the faults you find in other agency standards. Or is every other agency perfect so you only need to spend your time attacking PADI?

I'll check back tonight after I try to kill of some students to see if you bother.

How about this . . . read Walter's post, especially the following:

I think this was an excellent topic and parts of the discussion were interesting and informative. At this point, it is no longer productive. Wayne continues to make his points and Pete continues to attack him as a result.

However, it is not just Wayne and Pete that are locked in a stalemate. Your posts appear to me to all be variants on a "don't-say-anything-uncomplimentary-about-PADI" theme.

Flame away, Kingpatzer - I will enjoy not responding to your posts.

 

[Walter]

Your posts appear to me to all be variants on a "don't-say-anything-uncomplimentary-about-PADI" theme.

I usually try to avoid saying anything at all about PADI.

 

[JeffG]

However, it is not just Wayne and Pete that are locked in a stalemate. Your posts appear to me to all be variants on a "don't-say-anything-uncomplimentary-about-PADI" theme.

Ask him about DIR.

 

[Thalassamania]

How about this . . . prove you're not here to simply find fault with PADI. Spend a few dozen posts dissecting and critiquing the faults you find in other agency standards. Or is every other agency perfect so you only need to spend your time attacking PADI?

I'll check back tonight after I try to kill of some students to see if you bother.

You are being ridiculous. The ridiculousness that you display I'd guess stems from a lack of sufficient background to understand what people like Wayne and I (and a long list of others) have done professionally. Therein lies the real issue. You see, we know (and in Wayne's case have done), what you do. We observe it, with the rather minor variation permitted, every time we go to the shore. But you have no idea what is is that we do, and in your hubris, with your lack of imagination, you assume that it can't possibly be any different than what do. Trying to inform you of these differences falls on the same deaf ears that trying to tell a blind man what red looks like would. You will not have any real idea until you actually see what it is that we do, participate in how we do what we do, and come to understand that what we do is essential to the product that we produce.

It is easy to toss accusations such as elitist, POV Warrior, macho, whatever when you lack any comprehension of what it is that you are criticizing, and it is the height of prejudice and egotism (they oft go hand in hand) to direct such comments at people and concepts that you have not the vaguest understanding of. Now I will grant that, perhaps, we have to take some of the blame for not effectively explaining ourselves.

There are, from our perspectives, major flaws in the PADI training scheme. Were you to understand our critiques rather than just knee-jerk in oposition, you'll someday become a much better instructor than the limited, hidebound, blinder wearing PADI clone you appear to headed to be.

Allow me to share with you a story that I've posted before, while it relates to wetsuit selection, the basic storyline and moral are the same.

I issue a very detailed equipment list before each class that students who are accepted into the class need to purchase and show up with at the first meeting.

The suits we we use are, 5mm, skin-two-side, Rubatex GN-231N, attached hood, farmer johns, no zippers. I send my list to all the LDSs in the area and freely distribute whatever they send back to the students (this is a big deal to the shops, in the dead of winter, twenty full sets of gear with no selling or inventory required: take the order, take the money, and deliver in two weeks).

One student did not go to an LDS, but rather to a shop near her home, about a hundred miles away. I got a call from the Instructor in the shop informing me, in a fairly emphatic tone, that, “No diver could possibly wear this suit. They could not put it on without a zipper.” Now, please understand that I’ve been diving this suit design since the mid sixties, and the only people who need an inverted half zipper in the jacket are incredibly curvaceous women of petite statue. This woman was just shy of six foot, very athletic and quite thin.

Having nothing better to do (and considering that the woman in question was one of the brighter marine geologist grad students), I drove up to the shop later in the day. I brought my suit with me. I showed the Instructor how easy it was to put on and take off, etc. We solved the problem, but the bottom line was that this Instructor, well meaning as she was, had not yet worn out here first suit and was repeating what her Instructor’s had told her. It wasn’t a marketing issue, the LDS could and did supply the gear (and nicely matched the prices of the LDSs that had sent fliers).

The bottom line is that for dive gear, real information is hard to come by. Most of the opinions that you see on the net are biased either by being the only piece that class of gear that a new diver has ever used or being a loaner that the expert tried out on one or two dives, or may reflect a single bad experience that someone had, because they did not know how to use the item.

You've not been exposed to a wide range of training approaches, yet you've taken it upon yourself to trumpet the superiority of the system that you are part of and to denigrate others whose teaching experience it is unlikely that you will ever catch up with. Similarly, NetDoc, keeps going back to the bad experiences that he had as a diving student. His course was too long, there were boring lectures, they did pushups wearing tanks, and it was short on fun, thus he seems to be stuck in the illogical groove that if a course is longer than the one he teaches, or uses lectures, it is the same as the one that he so roundly disliked. I just ain't so.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Ask him about DIR.

You're an evil man, Jeff ... but frankly, King hasn't exactly been an exemplary participant here either. In fact, I daresay PADI would not be proud of some of the comments he has made on their "behalf".

Seriously, I don't see a lot of high ground in this conversation. It started out well enough, but has degenerated into a mud-fight. I guess if you're into that sort of thing ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Kingpatzer]

. . . the limited, hidebound, blinder wearing PADI clone you appear to headed to be.

I love a good viscous personal attack, particularly loved noting how you must be right because I can't possibly share your perspective due to my over-arching and complete ignorance of, well, everything. It brings so much to the party.

I don't pretend to have near the experience of folks who have been diving for decades. But I guess having taken the NAUI master diver course (and recommending it to everyone who is interested in something beyond rescue for recreation diving), signing up for a few TDI courses this spring, trying to find a way to get to sit in on some SEI classes (and would seriously consider a fundies course if one ever came to MN -- anyone?) so I can see what they do is all part and parcel of being a "hidebound, blinder wearing PADI clone."

My problem is that in a thread that is supposed to be about comparing standards, the same old anti-PADI suspects have shown no interest in doing anything but repeating how PADI is substandard and trying to kill divers.

Fine, we get it. PADI sucks, kills divers, beats baby seals, eats endangered turtles, smears sun block on coral, and no PADI instructor can possibly train a diver well because the standards won't let them.

But let's stop pretending that there's any other intent than to attack PADI standards here at all.

 

[Thalassamania]

I love a good ad hominem, it brings so much to the party.

There's no ad hominem there, your arguments are no more valid after my description than they were before. The point is that you have many, many strongly held opinions, and (at least from where I sit) a much higher opinion of your opinions than they deserve. I feel that you grossly overvalue what you bring to the table.

I guess having taken the NAUI master diver course (and recommending it to everyone who is interested in something beyond rescue for recreation diving), signing up for a few TDI courses this spring, trying to find a way to get to sit in on some SEI classes and keeping my eyes open for a fundies course in MN (anyone?) so I can see what they do is all part and parcel of being a "hidebound, blinder wearing PADI clone."

Just as a teacher can teach but a student may not have learned, you appear to have taken some classes, but not learned much about the differences in underlying philosophies.

My problem is that in a thread that is supposed to be about comparing standards, the same old anti-PADI suspects have shown no interest in doing anything but repeating how PADI is substandard and trying to kill divers.

From where I sit the average course, as advanced by any of the agencies, is substandard ... PADI is just only one that requires that it remain substandard. It is possible, at least under the aegis of some of the other agencies, to teach what I would see as an adequate course, even if that is not the norm.

Fine, we get it. PADI sucks, kills divers, beats baby seals, eats endangered turtles, smears sun block on coral, and no PADI instructor can possibly train a diver well because the standards won't let them.

But let's stop pretending that there's any other intent than to attack PADI standards here at all.

Yes, from where I sit PADI sucks and divers with entry-level PADI training are not prepared for much beyond diving in resort locations under the supervision of more experienced divers. That seems to be generally agreed to. If you want to morph that into "PADI kills divers," that's your trip, not mine. I don't remember any mention of beating baby seals, eating turtles or sunblock, but ... given the standard of performance that I (and to a less extreme degree, Wayne) teach to, you are quite correct ... "no PADI instructor can possibly train a diver well because the standards won't let them." Now you can make a fuss about the market place, elitism, the needs of the industry or the shops, whatever you want, but none of that serves to do anything except attempt to obfuscate the reality ... we train far more capable divers than you do or (likely) than you can imagine doing. That's not ego, that's not braggadocio, that's just cold hard fact. Now if you don't feel that divers need to be that capable ... that's rather a different discussion.

 

[Guy Alcala]

<snip>
ISTM diving pretty much does the same, although it's skewed more towards the 'car' tourist end.

Not necessarily ... "car" tourists don't generally go to the more challenging, and therefore more pristine, places that more skilled divers are attracted to. Mostly they don't even want to, because the amenities they've come to expect aren't generally available.

So to each their own ... as long as they're appropriately trained for the environment they're diving in ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

I was thinking more of the relative percentage of each trip that's made motor-powered vice human-powered. With a few exceptions at the extreme end, a dive is skewed more towards the former. Other than that, I agree with you.

Guy

 

[DCBC]

Now if you don't feel that divers need to be that capable ... that's rather a different discussion.

Thanks Thal; I think that you hit the nail on the head. As I was trying to point-out each agency has a slightly different training philosophy. From what I can gather, the largest difference is between PADI and the other agencies. In-particular in the following areas:

ACUC, CMAS, SEI, NAUI

Must be able to swim and pass an in-water assessment
Buddy Breathing allowed (required in some agencies)
Rescue/Recovery of Submerged Diver required

PADI

Must pass an in-water assessment
Buddy Breathing prohibited
Rescue of Submerged Diver prohibited

As already mentioned, I welcome additions/changes to this list by current instructors of all agencies.

It seems that perhaps the largest differences lie in the "certification agency requirements for certification" and "the instructor's requirements for certification." Some feel that the latter is tantamount to "going rogue," while others understand that it's a good thing at times to surpass the "minimums." Teaching above "minimum standards" is encouraged by many agencies and is at times expected by these agencies to ensure diver safety. This appears to be a difference in the various training philosophies that may have been missed by some participants in this discussion.

There are of course other areas that could be added to the list as well, but I haven't had much cooperation in fleshing these out in the discussion. Understanding what the differences are is only the first step. Once they are established, we can discuss what is and is not reasonable to include and why. This may vary from one geographic location to the other, as the hazards may change with the environment.

Each agency has its own reasons for doing things the way they do. As we have instructors from most, if not all agencies on SB, I don't know why we can't respectfully discuss the facts and weigh the pros and cons of each philosophy. I believe everyone can learn something from such an exercise.

I for one am interested in why some instructors don't teach rescue to their OW students and why they think it's unnecessary. Why buddy-breathing is taught in addition to sharing air using octopus seconds. I like others have my opinion (and have expressed them), but others seem unable to in favor of name calling.

Perhaps it's not too late for everyone to pull-in their horns and have a reasonable discussion in good faith. For those who can sideline the sarcasm and the insults, I would ask that we try not to make things personal and proceed with the discussion.

 

[TCDiver1]

Yes, from where I sit PADI sucks and divers with entry-level PADI training are not prepared for much beyond diving in resort locations under the supervision of more experienced divers. That seems to be generally agreed to. If you want to morph that into "PADI kills divers," that's your trip, not mine. I don't remember any mention of beating baby seals, eating turtles or sunblock, but ... given the standard of performance that I (and to a less extreme degree, Wayne) teach to, you are quite correct ... "no PADI instructor can possibly train a diver well because the standards won't let them." Now you can make a fuss about the market place, elitism, the needs of the industry or the shops, whatever you want, but none of that serves to do anything except attempt to obfuscate the reality ... we train far more capable divers than you do or (likely) than you can imagine doing. That's not ego, that's not braggadocio, that's just cold hard fact. Now if you don't feel that divers need to be that capable ... that's rather a different discussion.

If properly applied there's no reason PADI standards can't put out a well rounded "recreational" diver if said diver choses to practice what is learned. Certainly there are places it could be improved but saying that it "sucks" is beyond the pale.

Once again you are trying to compare apples and oranges. A recreational standard v an arguably professional one. That's like trying to compare a high school education with a bachelor degree. One prepares you for the other, not the other way around.