The Philosophy of Diver Training

[Walter]

Again, i'm not 100% up on current PADI standards but not being able to swim was a non-starter for OW certification when i was teaching.

That changed around 2000. I believe, but I admit I haven't read it in some time my memory may be faulty, they call the 300 yd snorkel swimming.

 

[DCBC]

Again, i'm not 100% up on current PADI standards but not being able to swim was a non-starter for OW certification when i was teaching. If you couldn't swim, you didn't get past the shop cash register let alone CW module one if you lied about it. Watermanship skills were among the first things i evaluated. You didn't have to finish the swims in record time but you had to be relatively comfortable doing it.

If i was in your position related to teaching in heavy tidal areas and still wanted to teach PADI, i would require a separate swimming class to handle that extreme as required. The class could be before OW training if PADI wouldn't allow it. Where there's a will, there's a way.

When I was a PADI Instructor, it use to be the case as well. You had to be able to swim. Over the years the standards have changed. I see this a bit differently depending on the agency involved. I think NAUI requires 12 swim cycles; the instructor may however request any number of lengths he sees as reasonable. ACUC and CMAS are the same way; regardless of what is in the standards, the instructor calls the shots as long as the minimums are met. The agency encourages the instructor to exceed them.

In my case, the minimums are insufficient for local conditions and there is a chance of a student only being able to meet minimum requirements and if everything else is equal (as I understand it), a PADI instructor would find themselves in the position of having to certify them. Needless to say, having to certify someone who's unsafe to dive in local conditions isn't a positive outcome.

This is why it becomes confusing for many instructors outside the PADI organization, as the instructor doesn't have to worry what their agency wants, as long as "minimums" are met or exceeded. It's the instructor's responsibility.

 

[The Chairman]

NAUI refers to it's certification as "a license to learn". They indicate that it is the "beginning" of everything.

So, what we have are three camps:

• Those who oppose the idea of a "learner's permit" (though we allow it with cars).
• Those who feel that OW certification is the beginning of a life long learning process.
• Those who feel that the systematic and/or unnecessary bashing of any one agency is non professional.

Count me in the last two.

I train my students to be SAFE in the environment that I am teaching them. They are encouraged to dive in conditions that are the same or better than the ones they were taught in. If they go to another environment, then they need additional training. They are quizzed on these limits and I expect them to dive by them.

Yes, I confess: I keep my classes fun and upbeat. I do this by being ultra efficient in my presentations and keep their learning progression intuitive and interesting. I understand that many of you eschew the newer training methods and that's OK. I am sure that your Luddite view works for you: just don't force it on me.

Those who THINK they know how I teach and that somehow I teach to the minimum, have no clue what they are talking about. There are easier ways to teach, but if you are convinced that the ancient ways are the best, then no one will be able to change your mind.

I hope this helps!

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Pete, I'm not clear on what you mean by "newer training methods". Would you care to elaborate?

AFAIK, the only significant change in training methods for OW over the past few years has been to move more toward "independent study" ... meaning that students no longer sit in a classroom, but watch DVDs at home and submit "knowledge reviews" that demonstrate they understand what they watched.

Is this what you're referring to?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Walter]

So, what we have are three camps:

• Those who oppose the idea of a "learner's permit" (though we allow it with cars).
• Those who feel that OW certification is the beginning of a life long learning process.
• Those who feel that the systematic and/or unnecessary bashing of any one agency is non professional.

Count me in the last two.

Count me in those last two as well.

I'm not against the concept of a learner's permit as long as we follow restrictions that are similar to those we follow with driving. A responsible driver must be with the restricted driver. Issue a restricted c-card that requires a dive professional with the diver. I see no issues.

I'm still learning about diving and I'm still learning about teaching diving.

I will expand on your concept of bashing agencies to include bashing people. Name calling and assuming motivation has no place here. I do not believe expressing honest opinions based on facts is bashing. If, for example, an agency does not require divers to learn no mask breathing, that is a fact. If I express my opinion that the lack of such a requirement is inadequate, that is not bashing. If I say "Agency A" sucks, I would be bashing. If I make up names such as those using an agency's initials or POV warrior, I would be bashing. If I toss words such as Luddite around, I would be bashing. Am I perfect? Nope, but I'm trying to be respectful. I will fall short from time to time as will we all.

 

[Walter]

I'm not clear on what you mean by "newer training methods".

I'm not speaking for Pete, but an example of a newer training method I've adopted is getting students off their knees. This is a great new method I happily endorse.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I'm not speaking for Pete, but an example of a newer training method I've adopted is getting students off their knees. This is a great new method I happily endorse.

I thought that was more the revival of an older training method ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[TechBlue]

NAUI refers to it's certification as "a license to learn". They indicate that it is the "beginning" of everything.

So, what we have are three camps:

• Those who oppose the idea of a "learner's permit" (though we allow it with cars).
• Those who feel that OW certification is the beginning of a life long learning process.
• Those who feel that the systematic and/or unnecessary bashing of any one agency is non professional.

Count me in the last two.

I train my students to be SAFE in the environment that I am teaching them. They are encouraged to dive in conditions that are the same or better than the ones they were taught in. If they go to another environment, then they need additional training. They are quizzed on these limits and I expect them to dive by them.

Yes, I confess: I keep my classes fun and upbeat. I do this by being ultra efficient in my presentations and keep their learning progression intuitive and interesting. I understand that many of you eschew the newer training methods and that's OK. I am sure that your Luddite view works for you: just don't force it on me.

Those who THINK they know how I teach and that somehow I teach to the minimum, have no clue what they are talking about. There are easier ways to teach, but if you are convinced that the ancient ways are the best, then no one will be able to change your mind.


I hope this helps!

A learner permit, permits a "learner driver" to drive when accompanied by a licensed driver, it has already been noted that "Scuba Diver" or "OW" limitations can and have been ignored at many resort locations.

Again you make it seem like it is a never ending process to learn how to dive safely and proficiently starting with the first class, the modular approach requires additional classes and time what takes longer and are you saying that he PADI model is not continuing education?

Unnecessary bashing of any agency is unprofessional, by the same token as a professional and you disagree how can it be couched so as not to be taken as bashing?

Regarding what students do once they leave your tender care is entirely up to them and if you believe that they will not dive beyond their limitations when they get offered a chance to dive to...to see....in a location where the conditions are not what they were certified for according to what you are telling me. That is the contention you expect students to restrict their diving to your "specified limitations" the OW cert has no indication of these limitations and they can and will dive in any conditions that they are allowed to.

What makes simplifying diving standards and training open and revolutionary-as opposed to sound, safe and proven teaching practices being luddite? The time restriction all seems to come down to the first class which should be the most important rather than just being an "introduction" and the first opportunity for ther LDS to reach a hand into the proverbial pocket

 

[Walter]

I thought that was more the revival of an older training method ...

Maybe, but I don't believe so. I've only been teaching since '86, maybe Sam can answer that.

 

[Crush]

So, what we have are three camps:

• Those who oppose the idea of a "learner's permit" (though we allow it with cars).
• Those who feel that OW certification is the beginning of a life long learning process.
• Those who feel that the systematic and/or unnecessary bashing of any one agency is non professional.

• Most agencies that I am aware of recommend that divers train at least up to the rescue diver level.
• I don't believe that anyone in this thread is opposed the idea of a "learner's permit;" we are simply discussing what should be the required skills and competencies of a learner (in possession of a valid learner's permit) who is unleashed upon the oceans of the world. Mastery will (hopefully) come with more courses and practice. The "bashing" you refer has been called "observation" or "concerns" by others and seems to be the by-product of the discussion of requisite skills and impediments to their implementation.