The Philosophy of Diver Training

[Peter Guy]

Walter, yes the skin diving skills are required, but it is up to the instructor as to when they are introduced/demonstrated.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

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.

And I wouldn't even have an issue with it if that's all there was to it.

My issue ... and it's certainly NOT specific to PADI ... is that these same students then get pushed directly into an AOW class that the vast majority of them want to take so they can do deeper dives. They then come out of that program with a total of less than 10 training dives thinking that they are adequately trained for dives to 100 feet ... usually with incomplete skills, inadequate gear, and no concept of how to manage their gas supply other than "watch your gauge and come up with 500 psi" ... compounded by SAC rates that practically stress the sides of their tank every time they take a breath.

Which, would probably STILL be OK as long as they've got a DM watching out for them. It's the ones who decide to go off on their own who often learn the harsh realities about the "adequacy" of their training ... and that's a lesson they usually DON'T have fun learning ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[The Chairman]

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

There are lots of them and they include:

• Online academics.
• Teaching the USE of the PDC rather than tables.
• Elimination of certain skills due to excessive risks (buddy breathing).
• Teaching the use of weight integrated BCDs.
• Trim and buoyancy even in the pool (which have never been taught adequately).

When the industrial revolution was in it's infancy, quite a few artisans in the textile industry were violently opposed to the use of technology (automatic looms) for making fabrics. They often complained about the dumbing down of textile fabrics and that you really weren't safe in a quickly made fabric. Everyone knows that fabric takes time to produce and that Mickey D fabrics are just not up to the task. They often referred to an imaginary leader by the name of General Ludd and were so given the name of Luddites. After all, it's hard to arrest or hang an imaginary leader.

Those who oppose technological advances often have the Luddite POV that anything "new" is bad. They continue that we need "tried and proven" methods that quite a few of us see as antiquated. We can either learn from history and avoid being Luddites, or we can take exception to the use of the term. Referencing the evolution of standards as "dumbing them down" is equally as offensive but we don't see Walter complaining about that.

Claiming that NAUI allows buddy breathing WITHOUT making it clear that buddy breathing while changing depths is not allowed in NAUI training is misleading. Making such a statement in an IDC would have Wayne Mitchell (me he rest in peace) full in your face correcting your statement. I know, as he did that to ME. It's an important distinction especially when it comes to risk management and making Scuba instruction safe.

How many agencies REQUIRE buddy breathing? How many allow it under only certain conditions? How many only allow it in advanced classes? Buddy breathing is a deprecated skill with the advent of the required backup second stage. It's use in training is best suited as a confidence builder and not as an alternative to a backup regulator.

 

[Thalassamania]

There are lots of them and they include:

• Online academics.
• Teaching the USE of the PDC rather than tables.
• Elimination of certain skills due to excessive risks (buddy breathing).
• Teaching the use of weight integrated BCDs.
• Trim and buoyancy even in the pool (which have never been taught adequately).

On-line academics are nothing more than a text book in a different media. Using on-line programs as the primary source for academic information is little more than saying, "go read the book and we'll talk about it later," an approach that I feel is inadequate and impersonal.

The same is true for dive computers and tables. A dive computer is nothing more than a table in animated form, a table is nothing more than a series of snapshots of a dive computer. What needs to be taught is the underlying theory and competent divers should be able to apply that theory to both dive computers and tables.

An "excessive risk" for buddy breathing has never been demonstrated.

Weight integrated BCs are not suitable for diving in any but the lightest warm water suits and are totally useless when teaching the snorkeling skills that many of us feel are the best foundation for SCUBA training.

We agree on trim and buoyancy.

When the industrial revolution was in it's infancy, quite a few artisans in the textile industry were violently opposed to the use of technology (automatic looms) for making fabrics. They often complained about the dumbing down of textile fabrics and that you really weren't safe in a quickly made fabric. Everyone knows that fabric takes time to produce and that Mickey D fabrics are just not up to the task. They often referred to an imaginary leader by the name of General Ludd and were so given the name of Luddites. After all, it's hard to arrest or hang an imaginary leader.

Those who oppose technological advances often have the Luddite POV that anything "new" is bad.

I don't see anyone making that argument except you, in what appears to me to be a vain attempt to justify egregious name calling.

That we need "tried and proven" methods that quite a few of us see as antiquated.

"Tried and proven," has something to recommend it when it comes to helping someone acquire survival skills for a non-breathable environment. Let's save, "new and improved," for slightly less critical functions, especially when it really only serves, in many cases (and perhaps in design), to bandaid over shortcomings in the instructor such as the ability to design and present a lecture that is informative, memorable, exactly targeted, and enjoyable.

We can either learn from history and avoid being Luddites, or we can take exception to the use of the term. Referencing the evolution of standards as "dumbing them down" is equally as offensive.

Not really ... there seems to be general agreement that once-upon-a-time diving agencies had standards that actually did result in the training of new divers who were capable of diving in rather a wider set of conditions than new divers are today; and who were much better equipped to learn by stretching their abilities incrementally, something that is far too challenging for most new divers to contemplate. It is that extra that both reduces the risk to the diver and that positions them to learn small things on their own and larger things with a more experienced diver, it is that lack of anything extra that produces the absurdity of courses like Peak Performance Buoyancy.

Claiming that NAUI allows buddy breathing WITHOUT making it clear that buddy breathing while changing depths is not allowed in NAUI training is misleading. Making such a statement in an IDC would have Wayne Mitchell (me he rest in peace) full in your face correcting your statement. I know, as he did that to ME. It's an important distinction especially when it comes to risk management and making Scuba instruction safe.

Regardless of your personal feelings abouy BB, or for that matter the policy of one or another agency with respect to BB, I have to note that BB helped me out of as many tight spots as ever did the use of an auxiliary.

How many agencies REQUIRE buddy breathing? How many allow it under only certain conditions? How many only allow it in advanced classes? Buddy breathing is a deprecated skill with the advent of the required backup second stage. It's use in training is best suited as a confidence builder and not as an alternative to a backup regulator.

Who cares? The reality is that BB is one step in a continuum. Today, with other options, it is stupid to have BB as an endpoint, but it equally stupid (NAUI, PADI, or Wayne Mitchell notwithstanding) to not have it at your fingertips as one of several potential solutions.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

There are lots of them and they include:

• Online academics.
• Teaching the USE of the PDC rather than tables.
• Elimination of certain skills due to excessive risks (buddy breathing).
• Teaching the use of weight integrated BCDs.
• Trim and buoyancy even in the pool (which have never been taught adequately).

Online academics aren't always adequate ... depends on the student and their ability to self-learn. While many students have the aptitude and discipline to learn that way, not all do. I see it more as a method that can be useful to augment stand-up teaching, and perhaps streamline the academic process, rather than as a replacement for live instruction. What that approach lacks is context ... because like the paper books it's replacing the knowledge is generic in nature and does not include the context of local conditions or the ability to expand on a topic that may not be adequately covered.

Pete, that method works well for you because you teach in an area the online material was written to target. Much of what I have read in the texts I've used both as student and instructor simply doesn't work effectively for cold-water diving. Live instruction has the ability to compensate for the inadequacies built into a program that's targeted to the warm-water diver. Online instruction won't do that until they develop regionalized instructional materials that target the specific needs of the local conditions.

Teaching the use of a personal dive computer is all well and good, but it's only as good as the student's ability to understand what the data means, and what they should do about it. Whether PDC or tables, the important concept is to have them comprehend the relationship between depth, time at depth, and time on surface interval. This relationship is the cornerstone of dive planning, and without understanding it, knowing how to use your computer really doesn't gain you much ... everybody already knows how to read numbers off an LCD display.

I'll agree about eliminating certain skills ... gone are the days of doing pushups in your tanks, and good riddance. However, the elimination of skills has to make sense in the context of the equipment you'll be using and the conditions you'll be diving in ... and those will not be homogenous on a worldwide scale. If an agency prohibits a skill being taught that the instructor considers necessary for local conditions and the gear requisite to dive those conditions, I see that as a problem.

I'll disagree with you on the integrated BCDs part ... not because I'm against them but because the majority of them simply aren't suitable for the cold water diver. I'm sure they work great in Florida, but most are inadequate for diving in Puget Sound ... either because of lift limitations or because they simply don't hold enough weight. At a minimum, they'll require you to augment some of your weighting requirements with a belt or harness ... which if you're diving in a drysuit or heavy neoprene wetsuit you should consider doing anyway.

We agree on trim and buoyancy ... what I disagree with is your follow-on comment. Whether or not these skills are taught adequately isn't an agency issue ... every agency, including PADI, allows an instructor to teach these skills adequately if they so choose. Most agencies simply don't REQUIRE it. But the good instructors always have.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[The Chairman]

On-line academics are nothing more than a text book in a different media. Using on-line programs as the primary source for academic information is little more than saying, "go read the book and we'll talk about it later," an approach that I feel is inadequate and impersonal.

Of course you would... just like that automatic loom! In fact, online training is far from reading a book because it's, what we anti-luddites call, "interactive". But, it does take the spot light OFF of the star, er instructor, and many find that anathema. However, in a court of law, the consistency of this online training is far superior than merely saying "I'm SURE we covered how to equalize ears in class!".

The same is true for dive computers and tables. A dive computer is nothing more than a table in animated form, a table is nothing more than a series of snapshots of a dive computer. What needs to be taught is the underlying theory and competent divers should be able to apply that theory to both dive computers and tables.

PDCs are so much more than that. They not only fully replace the tables, but they also replace your watch and depth gauge and ADD an event recorder. Unlike tables, they are also "interactive" (your new word for the day) and can alert the new diver to all sorts of errors such as quick ascents, riding the NDL and exceeding their MOD. Rather than leave deciphering this information to chance, the anti-luddite instructor trains the student to actually use their PDC intelligently.

An "excessive risk" for buddy breathing has never been demonstrated.

Sure it has. Why do you think NAUI has restricted the use of buddy breathing? Do you think it was a mere whim? In fact, SAFETY was the reason proffered by NAUI in announcing this change.

Weight integrated BCs are not suitable for diving in any but the lightest warm water suits and are totally useless when teaching the snorkeling skills that many of us feel are the best foundation for SCUBA training.

I've offered to teach you how to do this safely in even a dry suit. I guess you feel that the manufacturers should all recall their weight integrated BCDs? How quaint.

Let's save, "new and improved,"

This is indeed the Luddite POV in a nutshell. A total mistrust of new and improved methodologies... why? BECAUSE! There are no studies showing the new to be inferior. It's just the same "I don't teach/sell/use it, so it must be crap!" animosity we see. It's the ego making the judgment often in spite of evidence otherwise.

Not really ... there seems to be general agreement

This agreement is ONLY among a few. It's certainly NOT general in nature. It's like the guy who complains about today's cars with their new-fangled on board computers! "They don't make 'em like they used to!" THANK GOODNESS THAT THEY DON'T. We used to put points and condensors in cars twice a year back in the 60s and early seventies, with a new set of spark plugs most every year (12,000 miles). I finally put a set of spark plugs in my Honda Ridgeline at 130,000 miles. NOT because it needed it, but because I couldn't stand it any more! You can bet I put Honda spark plugs back in it! I remember hearing the same about electronic ignition, the advent of disc brakes and the list goes on! Thank goodness that the Luddites are in the minority!

The opposite of progress is congress. The future belongs to the former since the latter can get nothing done!

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Sure it has. Why do you think NAUI has restricted the use of buddy breathing? Do you think it was a mere whim? In fact, SAFETY was the reason proffered by NAUI in announcing this change.

When did this happen? Last time I taught a DM class it was still a required skill ... in fact, it was required while the DM candidate was exchanging gear with somebody (me, in this case).

I can see not requiring it because changes in equipment configuration have made it an obsolete skill for the typical recreational diver ... but safety?

Not buying that notion ... I wouldn't ever consider passing a DM candidate who couldn't do it ... if for no reason other than that it would show an inadequate level of in-water comfort to trust my students to that diver. Above all else, NAUI still practices the "loved one" concept ... particularly at the leadership level.

... Bob (Grateful DIver)

 

[Thalassamania]

Of course you would... just like that automatic loom! In fact, online training is far from reading a book because it's, what we anti-luddites call, "interactive". But, it does take the spot light OFF of the star, er instructor, and many find that anathema. However, in a court of law, the consistency of this online training is far superior than merely saying "I'm SURE we covered how to equalize ears in class!".

But it's not interactive, it's a sham. Sure is is possible for a program to be adaptive, but that's a far cry from interactive. If you teach to a rather low level and have rather low expectations of what needs to learned e-learning will work great. If you teach at a very high level and have high expectations for what will be learned then one size fits all (or even the adaptive formula of one of the sizes is close enough) is not good enough, you need the true interactivity of something that predates the Luddites by two thousand years ... Socratic dialogue.

PDCs are so much more than that. They not only fully replace the tables, but they also replace your watch and depth gauge and ADD an event recorder. Unlike tables, they are also "interactive" (your new word for the day) and can alert the new diver to all sorts of errors such as quick ascents, riding the NDL and exceeding their MOD. Rather than leave deciphering this information to chance, the anti-luddite instructor trains the student to actually use their PDC intelligently.

Call me a Luddite all you wish, it's patently and demonstrably foolish since I am clearly an early adopter. Were it not for the effort of a handful of us within the AAUS, dive computers might never have happened. You weren't around, but back when we started using them and pushed for their acceptance, most recreational instructors and agencies were opposed to dive computers, the exact same situation obtains for EAN and to a lesser degree mixed gas and rebreathers. I was the first non-military author to publish about the use of mixed gas in AAUS Proceedings and to advocate the use of rebreathers within the science community, so call me a Luddite, it just impacts on your credibility.

Sure it has. Why do you think NAUI has restricted the use of buddy breathing? Do you think it was a mere whim? In fact, SAFETY was the reason proffered by NAUI in announcing this change.

Because NAUI proffered it, that makes it so? Hardly. I have far more information concerning the success and failure of BB than anyone at NAUI HQ will ever have and I can assure you that there is no operational history basis for that change.

I've offered to teach you how to do this safely in even a dry suit. I guess you feel that the manufacturers should all recall their weight integrated BCDs? How quaint.

You don't need to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. I've spent more than few hours experimenting with your suggestions using both a Black Diamond and a Ranger. Is it possible to balance under your rig and take it off and replace it? Yes it is. It is possible, but it is far from stable (positive buoyancy under negative buoyancy) and it is not a procedure that I would recommend to anyone.

This is indeed the Luddite POV in a nutshell. A total mistrust of new and improved methodologies... why? BECAUSE! There are no studies showing the new to be inferior. It's just the same "I don't teach/sell/use it, so it must be crap!" animosity we see. It's the ego making the judgment often in spite of evidence otherwise.

As I have already demonstrated your accusation is baseless. You also seem to misunderstand the direction that studies should flow in, sensible people look for studies (or experience) to base their rationale for replacing the old with something better, not for studies to "show the new to be inferior," a rather strange methodology that you suggest.

This agreement is ONLY among a few. It's certainly NOT general in nature.

It seems to me, going back through this thread, that it is in fact a rather general agreement, even amongst the most die-hard PADI supporters.

It's like the guy who complains about today's cars with their new-fangled on board computers! "They don't make 'em like they used to!" THANK GOODNESS THAT THEY DON'T. We used to put points and condensors in cars twice a year back in the 60s and early seventies, with a new set of spark plugs most every year (12,000 miles). I finally put a set of spark plugs in my Honda Ridgeline at 130,000 miles. NOT because it needed it, but because I couldn't stand it any more! You can bet I put Honda spark plugs back in it! I remember hearing the same about electronic ignition, the advent of disc brakes and the list goes on! Thank goodness that the Luddites are in the minority!

I don't remember anyone in this discussion suggesting what you are citing. Please provide a quote. Again, I was a very early adopter, of electronic ignition, electronic fuel injection controls, disk brakes, etc.

 

[TechBlue]

Pete, you need to chill you are ranting ang raving, POV and luddite is a load of bollocks, you are not even making sense in a lot of your statements. As an experienced diver how can you say that a PDC is an improvement over tables, I do not know what kind of diving you do but the diving I teach tables are your primary source of dive planning and your computer is secondary, you always have tables as a backup to your dive.

You have already stated that in the event of a PDC failure you would simply use the backup you always carry in your bag along with regs and spgs. The backup in your bag does not have your dives in it's database to calculate your RNT at a minimum.This would lead me to believe that you do not undertstand dive planning and gas management at a minimum. So what are you teaching your students?

 

[Kingpatzer]

the important concept is to have them comprehend the relationship between depth, time at depth, and time on surface interval

And how long does that take to cover really? The 120 rule is a fine way to cover the idea of the relationship between dive time and depth and anyone can understand it. Surface interval requirements can be equally easily explained. Yes, the details become more complicated for multiple dives, but divers aren't going to have tables with them (and I've been on more than one boat where my wife and I were the only one's with tables -- to include the boat crew) which means they'll have to use best guess heuristics to determine if what the computer is reading is sane anyway.