The Philosophy of Diver Training

[rstofer]

I don't doubt that all knowledge and skill-sets that are covered by the PADI program are adequately mastered before certification. I'm disenchanted with the fact that the PADI instructor cannot test on other skill-sets and knowledge that's required to insure diver safety in some areas.

But there has to be an end to OW training. If mastery of tide tables is required, perfect buoyancy, perfect fin technique, absolute mastery of every possible skill and the program will never end. It would be strictly at the whim of the instructor. "Oops! I think I saw a little silt! Let's try again next week." And on and on.

That isn't what PADI intends and they won't allow an instructor to require it. Good for them!

We'd all have to fin like the guys on You-Tube if we were to follow this level of mastery and that is complete nonsense for an OW diver. Further, I doubt that mastery could be achieved in only 4 OW dives. Who cares what a diver can do in the pool? Most pools don't have silt.

There is a very long list of skills it would be nice to have. It is not necessary to have them all taught in OW.

Richard

 

[FireInMyBones]

There does need to be an end to basic OW training. To over teach a class is one thing, but to keep going and going and going is to take away from the other classes offered. To teach enough of the other classes to hook the student, to have the student want to learn everything that they can: that takes the skill of those with a true teacher's heart. Unfortunately, I have meet only a handful of dive instructors like that. I have been blessed that many of those with that heart have been my mentors.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

You do not have to be perfect and know everything. But having a baseline that gives the new diver a real starting point is not out of the realm of possibility. And maybe it is nonsense for the underwater tourist. But for the local diver and more importantly the divers following him/her it is very relevant. There is no reason an OW diver cannot learn and perform an acceptable frog kick. Everyone I've taught actually finds it easier to learn, easier on the knees and ankles, more relaxing, and like that when we turn around they can see where they've been! Mastery of tide tables may not be necessary for every location. But if you are going to dive where there are tides that can cause issues then yes you better know how to at least read the tables, tell time( which from the state or our public schools is a crapshoot in itself), and make the appropriate call to dive or not dive. And if you do what procedures you need to be aware of.

Perfect buoyancy is another thing that is not required but there is no good reason for an OW diver to be yoyo'ing, not stay off the bottom or the reef, or be unable to swim a straight line without the buddy having to look up or down to see where they are. I have yet to see a diver who is shown how to control their buoyancy from the outset be unable to use their breathing to control their position in the water column effectively by pool session 3 or 4.

I also think that students should come back for training because they want to expand their diving not because they have to.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

But there has to be an end to OW training. If mastery of tide tables is required, perfect buoyancy, perfect fin technique, absolute mastery of every possible skill and the program will never end. It would be strictly at the whim of the instructor. "Oops! I think I saw a little silt! Let's try again next week." And on and on.

That isn't what PADI intends and they won't allow an instructor to require it. Good for them!

We'd all have to fin like the guys on You-Tube if we were to follow this level of mastery and that is complete nonsense for an OW diver. Further, I doubt that mastery could be achieved in only 4 OW dives. Who cares what a diver can do in the pool? Most pools don't have silt.

There is a very long list of skills it would be nice to have. It is not necessary to have them all taught in OW.

Richard

I wouldn't expect perfection ... but introduction would be nice. I've met way too many OW divers who don't even realize that you CAN take a compass reading or adjust your mask without kneeling on the bottom ... who have heard the platitude "plan your dive and dive your plan" but have no idea how to do it ... or who give me a blank stare if I ask them what their turn pressure should be.

These are basic concepts ... that don't take much time at all to teach in an OW class. There's simply no excuse for not teaching them.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[FireInMyBones]

I also think that students should come back for training because they want to expand their diving not because they have to.

+1

The best divers continue learning.

 

[DA Aquamaster]

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.

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.

There's a key difference, and it highights a major problem.

In the 1970's when I was a life guard, ARC taught you to be a lifeguard - very generic and the training covered the skills needed in pools, lakes beaches - but was also consistent with the highest industry stnadards of the day. What they are doing now is better in the sense that it does a much better job of meeting the specialized needs that have developed today.

Over the same period of time, diving instruction has changed, but has been dumbed down in terms of what is commonly taught.

Back in the day we had "Basic" scuba, "Open Water" and "Advanced Open Water" and Basic pretty much prepared you to dive under controlled and non challenging conditions under the supervison of someone else. Open Water prepared you to be a fully independent and knowlable diver able to assess the conditions relative to your limits and conduct your own dives safely. Advanced Open Water aded to that by expanding your limits a bit.

Today, the PADI OW standards are so low that I'd argue they are closer to the older Basic standards and at best a modern AOW class might get you close to where a 70's or 80's era OW class may have gotten you - but that's really being very charitable when you see divers being cranked through OW and AOW and coming out the other end with no real mastery of skills and no real experience.

Now, in a sense that has been in response to the growth in the tourist dive industry, and on the face of it, there is nothing wrong with that - but call it what it is and market it acordingly. It is in essence a "tourist diver" certification comparable to the older Basic certification and shoudl not be promoted as an OW cert.

 

[FireInMyBones]

Now, in a sense that has been in response to the growth in the tourist dive industry, and on the face of it, there is nothing wrong with that - but call it what it is and market it accordingly. It is in essence a "tourist diver" certification comparable to the older Basic certification and should not be promoted as an OW cert.

Agreed.

Would I understand your point in that the problem is a misdirection of following the money?

I hear of what some of the guys I dive with that were trained 10-20 years ago went through in their OW class and I eat it up. I still have yet to learn some of it in a class and I am classified as a Decompression Diver. I end up doing so much self study and at home research, I am left with a saddened heart when I show up to some specialty classes.

 

[Thalassamania]

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?

Yes, they do ... but they have lots of smoke and mirrors that are used to pretend that that is not the case.

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

You can add (called "elaborate") almost anything that you wish, but you can not test elaboration(s) nor may you withhold certification if the student can not preform the elaboration(s).

From the PADI Manual

"During confined and open water dives, mastery is defined as performing the skill so it meets the stated performance requirements in a reasonably comfortable, fluid, repeatable manner as would be exepected of a diver at that certification level."

The scenario described in which a student diver is "plowing up the bottom" clearly indicates he/she has not mastered buoyancy control and/or hovering and the instructor is under no obligation to certify the diver.

Unless (as appears often the case) "plowing up the bottom" is what would be expected by that instructor of a diver at that certification level.

From the IDC Student Manual:

The definition in the Instructor's Manual is definitely lacking in specificity. However, there is mention of fluidity and repeatability. OW conditions are stressed to be kept as benign as possible, and it is made clear to the students and instructors that certification is to dive in conditions similar to or better than those in which the student certified.

An instructor certifying an OW student in the North Atlantic is almost certainly pushing, if not violating standards. The expectation that a newly minted OW student should be able to dive in such conditions is almost certainly misplaced. For example, understanding tides and surge are covered in specialties so any initial training sites that require the OW student posses that knowledge are sites which are definitively unsuitable for training.

When I was teaching in the North Atlantic my courses ran a bit over 100 hours. I'd estimate that, at a bare minimum, it takes about half that time to get through the bare bones.

I think I understand what you are trying to say. However, I believe every agency establishes standards that it deems are the minimum acceptable. If agency X decides buddy-breathing, for example, is a required skill, then that becomes their minimum standard. All agencies will certify students as long as they meet their standards, their minimum standards.

Granted, some agencies may have more requirements for their students than others, but they are still teaching to their respective minimum standards and will certify divers accordingly.

No, most agencies (except for PADI) say, "We all agree that this is the list of the things that all divers, regardless of location, need to be able to do. Add what you think is appropriate for your local environment and conditions."

So if I understand you correctly, the PADI program is not intended to produce a diver who is capable of diving in local conditions. People who would do their diving in the North Atlantic should take a PADI program in Florida, come back to the North Atlantic and take a specialty program to dive in the local area? If this is the case, why are there PADI 5 Star facilities bordering North Atlantic waters that are allowed to certify PADI divers? Are all these in violation of PADI standards?

Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors.

Couldn't you put together a "North Atlantic Diving" specialty class, then sell it as a package with OW?

Terry

Then they'd be teaching approximately what I used to and they don't see that as sufficiently profitable, despite the increased gear sales and decreased drop out rate.

A PADI Instructor cannot enroll a student into a specialty class unless he is first certified. I don't need to put together a specialty certification as my training agency expects me to be responsible, in-that I don't certify a diver to dive locally until they are prepared adequately. To accomplish this, my basic / open-water class encompasses everything the student needs to dive here, but the course duration is a minimum of 50 hours.

I'd agree, 50 hours is about rock bottom.

Hi DCBC,

Thanks for the reply. I believe the inclusion of "Instructor Judgment" allows an instructor in any agency to add additional training as he/she sees fit. As I mentioned in my post to Jim, we can very easily drift into the whole "instructor vs. agency" argument again if we aren't careful. Nevertheless, I appreciate the discussion.

I work in health care which is inundated with a mountain of policies, procedures, and standards... and rightly so. However, there is inevitably a phrase or clause in the policy and procedure manual that allows for "clinical judgment", "professional assessment", and other such ambiguous terms that permit us to use our brains and our experience and still operate within the limits of hospital-accepted standards.

Unfortunately, there will be those whose interpretation of such vague expressions will contribute to the deterioration of today's training which is lamented upon in SB again and again... Ooops... I'm drifting into that "instructor vs. agency" debate again.

Thanks again for your thoughts... As I mentioned in my post to Jim, your words, along with many other people's, will be rattling in my head as I do my IDC with PADI this summer. Cheers.

You are permitted to use your judgment and "elaborate." But you can not actual insist that your students be able to perform the skills that you felt were important enough to be included as elaborations.

This is true. And it is generally sufficient for the majority of students. The people I know who dive locally (such as myself) pretty much universally came back from a trip and said "ok, I want to do this more, what courses should I take?"

My students were quite the opposite, they learned to dive on the Northern California or North Atlantic Coast and maybe discovered warmer waters later on.

I do know of one fellow who wanted to do Superior wreck dives and wasn't doing a trip, and he came in and did OW, Dry Suit, PPB, AOW, Rescue and Wreck pretty much one right after the other -- because after discussion with the instructors that's what he felt comfortable with being necessary to adequately prepare him for the diving he wanted to do.

Sounds about like what I think an entry-level course should be.

 

[Thalassamania]

Ugh... now it's becoming the "instructor vs. agency vs. greedy, money-hungry diveshop owner" debate.

Sorry, couldn't resist. Again, thanks for your thoughts.

My goal as an instructor is to educate students to become safe, responsible, and confident divers. In my preparation for the IDC, I am not having any trouble visualizing how I can incorporate my own personal standards and expectations into the PADI system to achieve that goal. I may very well find that the reality of the situation is different with the boss breathing down my neck to expedite the course or the IDGAS attitude from a student who wants to just pay the money and get the card, but that will just add to the challenge... or so I hope.

Yes, the environment I will eventually be teaching in will be that warm and tropical one. I can see how teaching students in temperate waters requires a much different approach.

Thanks again.

A much different approach that PADI standards are not really designed for, but that some creative PADI instructors have founds ways around.

Thanks... again. It's great when these discussions unravel in such a way... Too bad we can't have it over a beer or two.

Your first point... This idea ventures into the realm of elaborating on a standard compared to exceeding a standard. There is nothing stopping a PADI instructor from having a student remove, replace, and clear a mask a dozen times during an OW course even if the standard only requires him/her to show mastery once. Yes, this is done at the discretion of the instructor, not agency mandated [edit], but also not prohibited by the agency.

Point two... basically a repeat of a previous post I addressed to you. Agencies set their standards. There is no "minimum" about it... there is just the standard. If hypothetical agency X requires their instructors (at their discretion) to teach beyond their stated standards, than what good are their standards in the first place? I know we are infringing on semantics here, and you did make your point about where you are coming from in a previous post, so perhaps I'm just being overly picky about the wording of "minimum standards"... I do that sometimes and I don't wish to belabour the issue.

I can, however, infer from your posts that you believe PADI's standards are insufficient, especially for the environment in which you dive. In my attempt to find that middle-ground and completely avoid, at all costs, any agency-bashing, I know that I can very easily incorporate my own personal goals into the system established by PADI to teach a student to become that safe, confident, and responsible diver we all hope to certify.

Here is where we part company. If you consider that to be agency bashing, I'm sorry ... I just see it as the cold, hard, facts. PADI standards do not create a diver who, to my way of thinking, is ready to dive in the North Atlantic, Northern California, or for that matter Hawaii. I could not, in good conscience run a course under PADI standards and certify divers who only met PADI's minimum standards.

Believe me, I do not hold up any one source of information (an agency Instructor Manual, in this case) with reverence as if it were some sort of all-encompassing fountain of inerrant knowledge.

Cheers

Neither do I.

From what I have gathered, there are agencies that allow for additional information to be taught. Others require the instructors to certify anyone who can complete the minimum requirements.

Okay, so we see a need for change in training.

1. Is there anything we can do to improve new diver knowledge of skills and information short of blowing off the "minimum" rule?

We've had this discussion before, and the bottom line is that there are individuals who feel that they can, within the PADI framework, sea-lawyer and squirm their way through and produce a competent diver within the spirit (if not the text) of PADI's standards. To my way of thinking: why bother? Why teach through and agency that does not trust your judgment to do the best that you know how for your students?

2. Is there any way to even prepare a new diver for every possible scenario (s)he may encounter?

No, but you can prepare them to meet a large percentage of them and to recognize and avoid the rest.

3. Understanding that the dive industry is run by consumers (those who buy products: training and equipment), how would changing the standards affect the industry?

This assumes that said consumers are told the truth and are thus capable of making such decisions. I think that it is pretty clear that someone who is completely naive of all things diving is not really in a position to properly make such decisions. I find the ski industry model, where my instructor is completely separate from the ski shop, a much more honest approach.

4. When new training agencies do pop up with higher standards (whether we agree with all of the standards or not), why are these agencies ridiculed (i.e. GUE...please understand this is an example)?

-Jeremy

Because they are doing what the "majors" can not and are putting the lie to the whole business.

...

Here is my challenge - how and where do we compile accident and fatality stats based upon the individual's certification agency? DAN's stats deal with certification levels, not with NAUI vs SSI, etc..

BTW, I know that such a list of stats will never be made. But I do have some bets...

Back when there was a real difference between the agencies PADI fought tooth and nail to assure that such stats were never compiled. But I can tell you that PADI, in the late 1970s, in response to a plethora of in-training fatalities made major changes in their program and, low and behold, there was a large reduction in such incidents.

But there has to be an end to OW training. If mastery of tide tables is required, perfect buoyancy, perfect fin technique, absolute mastery of every possible skill and the program will never end. It would be strictly at the whim of the instructor. "Oops! I think I saw a little silt! Let's try again next week." And on and on.

That isn't what PADI intends and they won't allow an instructor to require it. Good for them!

Except that they set the bar way too low.

We'd all have to fin like the guys on You-Tube if we were to follow this level of mastery and that is complete nonsense for an OW diver. Further, I doubt that mastery could be achieved in only 4 OW dives. Who cares what a diver can do in the pool? Most pools don't have silt.

Again, here's where we part company. It is quite possible to turn out a class that can fin like the guys on You-Tube, etc. Yes it takes more than 4 dives, yes is takes more than the tiny bit of pool time the PADI course allocates. And yes, some people do care what divers can do in a pool, because it translates to the ocean, especially if their pool work is conducted in full gear.

There is a very long list of skills it would be nice to have. It is not necessary to have them all taught in OW.

Richard

We seem to disagree not only on the list of skills but on the level at which all of the skills should be performed.

There's a key difference, and it highights a major problem.

In the 1970's when I was a life guard, ARC taught you to be a lifeguard - very generic and the training covered the skills needed in pools, lakes beaches - but was also consistent with the highest industry stnadards of the day. What they are doing now is better in the sense that it does a much better job of meeting the specialized needs that have developed today.

Yes, I went down to LA as a Red Cross Water Safety Instructor, but I still had to go through L.A. County Lifeguard training before I could work a beach there.

Over the same period of time, diving instruction has changed, but has been dumbed down in terms of what is commonly taught.

Back in the day we had "Basic" scuba, "Open Water" and "Advanced Open Water" and Basic pretty much prepared you to dive under controlled and non challenging conditions under the supervison of someone else. Open Water prepared you to be a fully independent and knowlable diver able to assess the conditions relative to your limits and conduct your own dives safely. Advanced Open Water aded to that by expanding your limits a bit.

Today, the PADI OW standards are so low that I'd argue they are closer to the older Basic standards and at best a modern AOW class might get you close to where a 70's or 80's era OW class may have gotten you - but that's really being very charitable when you see divers being cranked through OW and AOW and coming out the other end with no real mastery of skills and no real experience.

Actually they are way below the old "Basic Diver" standards which included, for example, tired diver assists and full rescue of an unconscious diver from the bottom.

Now, in a sense that has been in response to the growth in the tourist dive industry, and on the face of it, there is nothing wrong with that - but call it what it is and market it acordingly. It is in essence a "tourist diver" certification comparable to the older Basic certification and shoudl not be promoted as an OW cert.

Yes.

Agreed.

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."

Where you wanted to be is, delightfully, just about where the old, "Basic Diver" would have put you.

 

[FireInMyBones]

Thalassamania,
As always, I appreciate the response.
I do feel that the skills I learned up through Rescue would be useful in OW. I hope that I can help remedy this when I become an instructor one day.

I pose another question: Will these changes we see fit become the "new" standard? Is it possible for the "old" standard to reign again?