The Philosophy of Diver Training

[DCBC]

I don't read the manual that way (though I've not passed an IE yet, so I'm not going to presume my reading is authoritative). Since mastery learninig is predicated on performance in the open water dives, the ability for a student to pass those skills in a location where the certifying waters are going to be the North Atlantic will have to have developed a higher level of skill than someone doing the same skills in a less extreme environment.

That means the course will likely be longer, have more confined water time, etc.

The skills would not change, but the abilities required to perform them would, and thus the course would have to change to accommodate that difference.

That said, I personally feel say that any instructor who would suggest a newly minted OW diver go dive in the North Atlantic on their own without gaining significant additional experience is highly irresponsible. There are some waters that simply are not suited to new divers.

You will find that PADI doesn't look at it that way. Again, you cannot test on anything outside of minimum standards, nor can you withhold certification from someone who has passed minimum standards. It's all about the minimums. That's why I no longer teach through PADI.

 

[FireInMyBones]

I teach Lifeguards through the American Red Cross. They have a minimum standard that needs to be taught. I can not fail someone who completes this level. When I teach, I teach with the extra information allowed and then some from experience on how to make rescues more efficient and be aware of what advanced medical personnel will look for when arriving on scene. I can not test my students on these concepts and they are aware of that. But more often than not, they want to learn it to be a better lifeguard. Same goes for any form of instruction.

 

[rstofer]

They also have to perform a rescue surface/sub-surface on a conscious/non-conscious diver. Certifications like NAUI, ACUC and CMAS (amongst others) recognize that the instructor has a unique insight as to what is required to dive safely in their area. This information isn't canned into any training manual, nor is training conducted like paint-by-numbers. One solution does not fit all. Whatever additional training than an instructor gives is useless unless it may be examined by the instructor and certification can be withheld until it is satisfactorily completed.

However, this approach leads to the possibility that training is punitive, arbitrary or capricious. Every instructor deciding what is and isn't adequate just results in anarchy. It also leads to 'self filtering'. I want to know, going in, exactly what is required. I can imagine people who have a mild interest just staying away because the requirements aren't written down and are strictly at the whim of the instructor on any given day.

Shops could be two miles apart physically and worlds apart on training. At least with a standardized program, everyone (including dive ops) knows what to expect. In the free-for-all arena, who knows what will be considered adequate?

PADI has set their standard. They specify exactly what the instructor can demand and that's that. The training should be uniform across all PADI instructors and I don't think PADI intends that their standard be adequate for Antarctica. I'll bet they are willing to overlook the business opportunity of the 3 potential divers down there and just focus on the 1/2 million new divers that aren't going to dive in extreme conditions. They know where their market is and it isn't that far south.

Instructors are free to choose which agency they teach for. Clearly PADI isn't the right choice for all. But they certainly cover the majority of new divers. Most agencies don't publish figures but I would be willing to bet that PADI new certs exceed all other agencies combined.

BTW, my training was with NAUI; by chance, not informed choice.

Richard

 

[rstofer]

I teach Lifeguards through the American Red Cross. They have a minimum standard that needs to be taught. I can not fail someone who completes this level. When I teach, I teach with the extra information allowed and then some from experience on how to make rescues more efficient and be aware of what advanced medical personnel will look for when arriving on scene. I can not test my students on these concepts and they are aware of that. But more often than not, they want to learn it to be a better lifeguard. Same goes for any form of instruction.

And this is the way it should be done. Every single ARC Lifeguard has exactly the same minimum training. Sure, there may be many who know more than the minimum but at least there is a minimum. Day one, when a new lifeguard shows up on the job, their employer can expect a certain level of competence. The rest is OJT.

Richard

 

[DCBC]

I teach Lifeguards through the American Red Cross. They have a minimum standard that needs to be taught. I can not fail someone who completes this level. When I teach, I teach with the extra information allowed and then some from experience on how to make rescues more efficient and be aware of what advanced medical personnel will look for when arriving on scene. I can not test my students on these concepts and they are aware of that. But more often than not, they want to learn it to be a better lifeguard. Same goes for any form of instruction.

Putting this into a SCUBA certification scenario is totally acceptable as long as the skill-sets demonstrated are sufficient for the diving environment. The skill-sets required in an idealistic setting are different than say the North Atlantic or in a Mountain Lake at altitude. PADI does not differentiate between these as far as minimum standards are concerned.

My point is that if the minimum standards do not insure that a diver can dive safely in the local area, they are insufficient. This is the reason why some organizations give their instructors latitude to prepare the diver for the conditions present. They still have to meet the minimum standards of the agency in addition to whatever other training is required.

I use to certify instructors through the Royal Lifesaving Society. The standards that were required for certification were different for a pool lifeguard and another who guarded open-water lake/ocean. This makes sense. If you change the environmental conditions, the guard has to possess the requisite environmental knowledge and abilities.

 

[FireInMyBones]

My point is that if the minimum standards do not insure that a diver can dive safely in the local area, they are insufficient.

Agreed.

I use to certify instructors through the Royal Lifesaving Society. The standards that were required for certification were different for a pool lifeguard and another who guarded open-water lake/ocean. This makes sense. If you change the environmental conditions, the guard has to possess the requisite environmental knowledge and abilities.

ARC is the same way a different certification for those who will only guard up to 4 feet of water (Shallow Water Attendant), Full-pool Lifeguard, Waterpark Lifeguard and Waterfront Lifeguard.

Each new level offers new challenges. SCUBA is the same. Basic certification would be suffecient if all environments were the same and the students were taught there in. As several number of factor can change a dive site from hour-to-hour, something extra may be needed. I am only familiar with SDI's OW course, so I can not speak for other agencies, but the OW course I received could have prepared me more.
Perhaps it is in the business model that I was not where I wanted to be until after "Rescue Diver."

 

[Web Monkey]

Putting this into a SCUBA certification scenario is totally acceptable as long as the skill-sets demonstrated are sufficient for the diving environment. The skill-sets required in an idealistic setting are different than say the North Atlantic or in a Mountain Lake at altitude. PADI does not differentiate between these as far as minimum standards are concerned.

I'm a little confused here.

We're an SSI shop, so I've never had to deal with PADI, however are you saying that PADI wouldn't allow me to train a diver to be able to safely dive in local conditions? Around here that means anywhere from barely-thawed water to maybe 70 degrees, vis that ranges from 0 to maybe 40' and sometimes high current.

Do they really expect the instructor to hand out cards that say the holder is qualified to dive but really isn't?

While I can understand having minimum standards, is there some restriction on exceeding them? For example, if the student can clear a mask, but it takes several attempts and is accompanied by large amounts of anxiety, is there some reason that the skill couldn't be practiced until it was easy and produced no anxiety?

Terry

 

[DCBC]

Basic certification would be suffecient if all environments were the same and the students were taught there in. As several number of factor can change a dive site from hour-to-hour, something extra may be needed.

Yes, I guess I have a beef with some organizations who restrict the instructor from preparing the diver adequately. Instructors who teach through these organizations often try their best to go above and beyond what is required. Others however just give the diver as little as the minimum dictates and certify the diver anyways.

I see that the responsibility lies with the certification body. Diving instructors should not be the ones to make up for the shortcomings of the training program. Refusing to allow an instructor the leeway to decide if other training is required to be mastered before the diver is certified to dive in the local area is criminal in my view. When diver certification has a focus on equipment sales rather than an educational one, I believe we are going down the wrong path.

 

[inked59]

I believe in more training especially toward the solo diver. I do not personally have a permanent dive buddy. So far I've been able to find one where ever I am diving but I expect that will not always be the case. Should I not dive because I can't find a buddy on those occasions? I would rather be well trained to dive on my own than to miss the opportunity to dive. Just my humble opinion.

 

[DCBC]

We're an SSI shop, so I've never had to deal with PADI, however are you saying that PADI wouldn't allow me to train a diver to be able to safely dive in local conditions? Around here that means anywhere from barely-thawed water to maybe 70 degrees, vis that ranges from 0 to maybe 40' and sometimes high current.

Do they really expect the instructor to hand out cards that say the holder is qualified to dive but really isn't?

While I can understand having minimum standards, is there some restriction on exceeding them? For example, if the student can clear a mask, but it takes several attempts and is accompanied by large amounts of anxiety, is there some reason that the skill couldn't be practiced until it was easy and produced no anxiety?

Terry, I'm not trying to put-down any agency. PADI has contributed greatly to recreational diving and has some of the best QA in the industry. The topic under discussion however is the philosophy of diver training. All certification agencies do not share the same philosophy.

One major training difference between PADI and other agencies, is that with PADI the instructor can add additional material to the program (some things are restricted such as buddy breathing), however he cannot test the student on this material. As long as the student meets PADI's minimum requirements, the instructor cannot withhold certification. In other words, if a student needed to utilize a certain skill-set or possess certain knowledge (tide tables for example) to safely do a dive in the local area, an instructor could attempt to teach the student this, but if they didn't comprehend what was taught, but met minimum requirements, they would have to be certified anyway.

If I am to certify someone, the student must meet the agencies requirements and my personal requirements. Say I require surface/sub-surface rescue of a conscious/non-conscious victim, I can withhold certification until this is successfully accomplished. With PADI, this is something that an instructor can't do.

PADI's philosophy of diver training is positive in-that what a student gets in London is the same as Sydney. The downside as I see it, is that diving in the North Sea is different than the GBR.

There is a greater dissimilarity of the training someone receives with NAUI, ACUC, CMAS, etc. as they all meet the minimums, but what the individual instructor adds is a wild card. The instructor can teach to the minimums, but doesn't have to be restricted to the minimums as far as testing and certification is concerned.