TechBlue:
It's a fancy way of calling someone a dinosaur. Instead of healthy debate, call people names. Say they are afraid of technology. Avoid issues. Ridicule people.
The Philosophy of Diver Training
- Thread starter DCBC
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
It's a fancy way of calling someone a dinosaur. Instead of healthy debate, call people names. Say they are afraid of technology. Avoid issues. Ridicule people.
Regarding teaching skin diving skills first, PADI has changed the standards, and this is now permitted. The skin diving skills are "dive optional", which means they can be put into the confined water curriculum at the instructor's discretion. Peter's been really happy with teaching them first -- it sorts out a lot of mask issues for the students before they're on scuba.
Not to pile on but I want to specifically counter the following statement:
I believe this is a good revision for the reasons Walter has said and am glad PADI made the change. Prior to 2010, Skin Diving could only be introduced after the first confined water session.
That WAS true until the 2010 revisions which now state:
I believe this is a good revision for the reasons Walter has said and am glad PADI made the change. Prior to 2010, Skin Diving could only be introduced after the first confined water session.
OP
Skin diving (snorkeling) was taught prior to SCUBA prior to 1992 with PADI and all other agencies of which I'm aware. I've taught in this manner since 1972 and have found it to be beneficial. Sometimes progress requires an accurate assessment of how things were done in the past and to not change things for the sake of change. Good move on PADI's part, to change things back to the way they were.
TSandM:
That is good news.
TSandM:
That is not good news.
Peter Guy:
Me too! I hope lots of instructors make use of it.
OP
The knees approach has been the standard, or least it was in 1965 when I was certified and when I became an instructor in 1972. I think that "buoyancy control" wasn't so much of an issue back then, as you didn't have a whole lot of choice. Once your weights were set, that was it. If you went deep, you tightened your belt so the belt wouldn't fall-off, then had to kick like hell for the surface. The only choice you had (if you were fortunate enough to have a flotation vest) was to pull the cartridge in your vest (usually a 16 gram cartridge in the older vests) which would provide approx. 16 lbs of surface buoyancy. With the advent of the BC and the dry-suit, the diver had more options.
Last edited:
Walter, "dive optional" just means that the instructor can sequence it any way he wants, as opposed to skills that MUST be taught in a specific confined water session. It doesn't mean you can omit it.
TSandM:
So the skills are required?
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,798
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
"Sucks" was not my term, it was introduced into this thread by Kingpatzer, I would use the terms "inadequate" and "incomplete." Be that as it may, IMHO PADI standards, while improving, do not produce a "well rounded" recreational diver. The best that can be said of them is that they produce a diver who is ready to gain some diving experience in conditions that are the same or better than those in which they were trained by diving accompanied by leadership personnel.
What you are missing is that when the task is one that requires a bachelor level background, showing up with a GED is akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight. Now if what you want to discuss is the adequacy (or inadequacy) of the PADI program when it comes to producing a diver who is capable of independent diving in (note no modifier) local conditions, I think there's almost consensus that it is inadequate and should be transformed into a learner's permit for resort divers that requires leadership escort. What your loosing track of (or perhaps never knew) is that the Scripps Model 100 hour course that I teach is, basically, the same program that was originally designed to produce competent recreational divers on the California coast, the programs that are now being offered by all the agencies are naught but depauperate shadows that have been hacked out of that standard for use under ideal conditions. Since driving analogies seem to be so popular, The Scripps Model course is like an SCCA Regional Competition License, which while likely more than you need to drive on the street, but pretty much assures that you can properly control your car under most all conditions; skills that have saved my butt a few times, but are not required on a daily basis. But what the diving world has done is strip out of that, not just those things that relate to the track only, but rather reduce the requirements to those most appropriate for a rail guided amusement park ride while pretending that is was just making the requirements for licensing a "street-only driver" more efficient and fun.
An automobile learners permit requires the presence of a fully licensed driver and usually is restricted to ideal conditions (e.g., daylight hours, etc.)
There's no one who would disagree with the idea that OW certification (or Instructor Certification, or Course Director Certification) is anything other than, "the beginning of a life long learning process."
It is the peculiar attributes of the standards and procedures of one particular agency that makes it take the brunt of systematic complaint. If you want to call that "unnecessary" or "bashing," that's your trip ... there are many of us who see it as the epitome of responsible behavior in what is essentially a self-regulated industry.
So, while you prepare your students for what Tim Cahill described as ""you flop off a boat like a dead tuna into gin clear water that is the temperature of a urine sample," there are others of us who, quite legitimately feel that adequate preparation for more challenging conditions is essential; especially for new divers who, naturally, will lack nuanced judgment when it comes to conditions.
The implication is that others do not do these things. That implication is wrong in actuality and wongheaded in delivery. Just because your initial scuba training experiences where less than optimum and the course that you endured was longer than average does not mean that every (or even most) course(s) that is more complete than yours has any of the features of your early diving experience. I really think that it is time for you to rise above those bad experiences and learn see that they do not apply in a general case.
The reality is that the students that DCBC and I produce (each in our own different way) are perfectly capable to dive in the environment that you train in; whilst the converse is simple not the case. Until you can make a rational and reasoned case that the students you produce are ready and able to dive safely in our home oceans perhaps you should limit your use of deprecating adjectives and terms.
It's less any personal knowledge of what you personally teach and more your firm planting in the camp of "less instruction is better" that causes the more seasoned veterans here to conclude that what you do, while it may be trendy, is not likely to produce a diver whom we would be comfortable taking credit (or responsibility) for.
Hardly a new method, we've been doing it for many years, at least as far back as the late 1960s, sure it was more difficult back then, before BCs and such, and required both fine breath control and exact weighting. If you look at Lee Somers, "University of Michigan Research Divers Manual" (it is on-line) you'll see an example of the sort of graph or chart that each of us had to assist with proper weighting for the depth we were planning to dive to.The knees approach has been the standard, or least it was in 1965 when I was certified and when I became an instructor in 1972. I think that "buoyancy control" wasn't so much of an issue back then, as you didn't have a whole lot on choice. Once your weights were set, that was it. If you went deep, you tightened your belt so the belt wouldn't fall-off, then had to kick like hell for the surface. The only choice you had (if you were fortunate enough to have a flotation vest) was to pull the cartridge in your vest (usually a 16 gram cartridge in the older vests) which would provide approx. 16 lbs of surface buoyancy. With the advent of the BC and the dry-suit, the diver had more options.
Last edited:
OP
Thal, I agree with what you have said, but our goals are different than many recreational instructors who live in different geographic locations and who may dive in less challenging conditions. Your program is based upon the 100 hour Scripps Model to enable Scientific Divers to function adequately. I have had the requirement to trained Commercial Divers (a minimum of 800 hours of instruction) and recreational OW Divers (50 hours of instruction). For me, the diving conditions largely dictate the amount of training required.
If I was teaching a recreational diver in vacation land (something that I've never done), I suspect that my training time may be shorter than my current program. In any regard, there are skills I would retain regardless, such as:
an increased requirement of swimming/in-water ability;
diver rescue; and
buddy breathing
Many of the diver certification agencies require these skill-sets, or at least allow them in their OW (or equivalent) training programs. PADI does not.
Without trying to "bash PADI" (although I will likely be accused of it), I think it's worth noting that:
PADI does not allow their instructors to modify the minimum standards in the same manner as other agencies. If NAUI requires 10 swim cycles for their in-water assessment (minimum standards), they along with other agencies (CMAS, ACUC and others) encourage their instructors to surpass these standards. In the case of an instructor who faces preparing students for more challenging conditions, the option is there for the instructor to increase the standards and insist that the new level be achieved before the student is certified.
Similar conditions are applicable for rescue and buddy breathing. Many agencies allow or insist that these skills be taught, PADI prohibits their instructors from teaching them in the OW program. I obviously have a problem with this philosophy.
I would honestly like to know what other people think about this? If the goal is to produce a diver who's capable of acting in the capacity of a Buddy and diving without supervision, why is underwater rescue/recovery of a victim not required?
Are there instructors out there who feel right about certifying a non-swimmer to dive in 32 degree water temperature, with high currents and large tides? or will they admit that such standards are inadequate for such conditions? If so, what do they do if these types of conditions are normal?
Adding to and modifying content (upwards) to a scuba program has been an acceptable way of producing divers for many years, through many well respected agencies. If this is not done (as in the case of PADI), how can PADI divers be certified in challenging conditions in many such locations world-wide?
Agency standards are minimal. As I've already mentioned, some agencies expect the instructor to train the diver to dive safely in the local area and increase the standards accordingly. I believe this is reasonable as conditions vary and the training program has to reflect this. How does PADI address this issue if the instructor is not allowed to modify something as simple as the in-water assessment requirements???
Similar threads
