To those considering an OW class...

[MikeFerrara]

Please, everyone taking part in this thread, go have a look at this http://scubaboard.com/showthread.php?t=153560.

That thread is also here in the new divers forum. I don't want to embarrass or insult the poster asking for advice but this really is typical of what we see in the water as well as here on the board. The poster is new but is also certified. It's difficult to argue that the described situation is not potentially dangerous. It is dangerous...reference the DAN accident report for the frequency of buoyancy control problems and rapid ascents in dives that result in injury/death.

I'll put up real money that the divers instructor did NOT violate any training standards. I say this for a couple of reasons. First, the fact is that you can certify a diver having these types of problems when oporating exactly by the book. Second I've known LOTS of instructors and meet new ones almost every trip out diving. While many of them are teaching real junk, most don't know it and really are trying to do a good job. The problem is the definition of "good" that they were taught by their agency.

It doesn't have to be this way and it shouldn't be this way. At best it takes the enjoymant out of the sport for many new divers, those around them and even trashes our dive sites. At worst it can get them hurt or killed.

Unlike some here, I don't blame the instructors at all. Many are little more than new divers themselves and most teach the way they were taught to teach to the best of their ability. Unfortunately the same things that are left out of the OW courses aren't in any of the other classes either so the instructors don't always know it and they certainly aren't required or even encouraged to teach it.

 

[jbichsel]

Please, everyone taking part in this thread, go have a look at this http://scubaboard.com/showthread.php?t=153560.

That thread is also here in the new divers forum. I don't want to embarrass or insult the poster asking for advice but this really is typical of what we see in the water as well as here on the board. The poster is new but is also certified. It's difficult to argue that the described situation is not potentially dangerous. It is dangerous...reference the DAN accident report for the frequency of buoyancy control problems and rapid ascents in dives that result in injury/death.

I'll put up real money that the divers instructor did NOT violate any training standards. I say this for a couple of reasons. First, the fact is that you can certify a diver having these types of problems when oporating exactly by the book. Second I've known LOTS of instructors and meet new ones almost every trip out diving. While many of them are teaching real junk, most don't know it and really are trying to do a good job. The problem is the definition of "good" that they were taught by their agency.

It doesn't have to be this way and it shouldn't be this way. At best it takes the enjoymant out of the sport for many new divers, those around them and even trashes our dive sites. At worst it can get them hurt or killed.

Unlike some here, I don't blame the instructors at all. Many are little more than new divers themselves and most teach the way they were taught to teach to the best of their ability. Unfortunately the same things that are left out of the OW courses aren't in any of the other classes either so the instructors don't always know it and they certainly aren't required or even encouraged to teach it.

Amen, Mike. Always good to have your input. The problem is agnecies lowering standards to a point where certification violates their own standards.

 

[MikeFerrara]

There has certainly been some lowering of standards but many of the things that I think need to be taught have NEVER been there at all (as far as I know).

 

[Thalassamania]

Them what can't do, teach; them what can't teach administer; them what can't administer, coach.

Sure am glad that I "Instruct."<G>

 

[Dive-aholic]

And will instructor A take students from instructor B, teach those things, and charge them a price such that the total they paid is not much more than starting with OW?

In any case, my view is that *OW* under the current requirements should be treated more as a learning permit and not as "go rent tanks, get your boat, and dive" which it, in theory, is. Not that someone would need to go back to class or take a test, just get some practice in a somewhat supervised and controlled environment before they are ready to head out with their newly certified buddy.

I believe we're in agreement. The Scuba Diver cert sounds like what you're proposing OW should be. I've never issued a SD cert, but the way I think I would use it is for someone who just can't quite get it but isn't completely without hope. I would add more sessions, but sometimes that's just not enough. The diver needs more time. So here's the SD cert. Although I don't see this situation happening. I would hope the extra sessions would be enough. I also encourage all my students to come out and dive with us every month. We're at our local lake every month and every one of them is welcome to just come out and dive.

 

[RJP]

I have met numerous people over my 17 years of diving, that have expressed EXACTLY the senitment that they stopped diving because they did not feel well trained after OW certification.

That's idiotic!

Not your comment, the sentiment.

The attrition rate in diving is due in large part to people realizing that diving is not as easy as they thought. It requires time, it requires dilligence, it requires dedication, it requires a willingness to learn.

OW certification is nothing more than a licence to continue to learn how to dive. If you choose NOT to continue to learn how to dive, that's entirely YOUR problem.

And to be honest, anyone who thought they were gonna "be a diver" after OW, and quits rather than get more training - I'm quite happy to have them no longer diving.

 

[mikiedfd17]

I think it's like any other education you get. . . You get what you put into it . . . I knew a lot about diving just becuase I was soooo into it when I first took my OW class. My instructor told me I was a natural, but I just had a lot of education. Likewise, I stayed OW for almost 5 years later. The only reason I went for my advanced was because the "boats of the Keys" like to see AOW before they'll let you dive. They could care less about your skill, but the fact that I was still OW 5 years later I guess meant that I wasn't ready for an 80ft dive. Nonesense! I think for a World-wide certifiying agency, it's hard to push certain standards. I look at some divers I've been with (ranging from AOW to even DM's) where I have found myself reminding them of certain things to do with their gear or what not. I am a Red Cross Lifeguarding Instructor and I see it there too, you'll have fabulous lifeguard instructors like my high school swimming coach who actually go beyond the written curriuclum of the Red Cross and I've seen some paper signers, who won't go much past the written curriculum. The ARC curriculum is a guide, probably like the PADI (I'm not a Padi professional, so I couldn't argue for both). I think that no mater what though, you will have your vacationers who will never have a clue to why we don't dive to 60ft with a tank of oxygen vs a tank of air, I guess we will just pray that the chances are with them as I will continue reading my magazines and engage with divers in forums like these.

 

[MikeFerrara]

That's idiotic!

Not your comment, the sentiment.

The attrition rate in diving is due in large part to people realizing that diving is not as easy as they thought. It requires time, it requires dilligence, it requires dedication, it requires a willingness to learn.

Maybe but the marketing can sure lead them to believe that it's about as easy as falling off a log.

OW certification is nothing more than a licence to continue to learn how to dive. If you choose NOT to continue to learn how to dive, that's entirely YOUR problem.

We hear this a lot. We hear it so often that we might be tempted to accept it without further thought. At one time I would have agreed and have probably made similar statements myself.

Now, I disagree. First of all, a certification is not a license at all because in most parts of the world there are no laws requireing certification. However, the industry treats it as a license to dive...you need to flash a card to get air, a boat ride or to rent equipment. While there is plenty to learn beyond entry level training, this industry "license" does, in fact, imply that you KNOW and CAN DO certain things. Inother words, it implies that you HAVE leaned those things and not that you are learning them.

If we make a list of skills that are used on every dive that is done well, I think we'd be pretty close to having an outline of what a diver should have learned prior to being issued that certification. In my experience, plenty of divers are being certified before mastering those basics. As far as I'm concerned, that totally destroys the credabity of that "license". As a result, the certifications issued by the recreational agencies are completely meaningless to me. Well, maybe not meaningless but I'll bet what they mean to me isn't what the agencies intended.

 

[dolphinfish]

Vondo, I looked up the manual and you are right !!

But now that makes me think. If PADI were so market oriented wouldn't they be saying "Open Water Diver" rather than "new diver". The way the recommendation is worded, you COULD consider yourself "not new" after 50 dives or 100 dives or whatever. But if the words had been "Open Water Diver" then even with 500 dives the recommendation would still stand.

Incidentally, I was told specifically that that was the limit for "Open Water Diver" by the resort , which made me go for "Advanced" immediately after 'Open Water" !!!

Sorry, but no divemaster I have encountered so far has prevented me from doing a deep dive because I'm only OW cert. In fact, they have never even asked if I was AOW. Have not dove in the US, only in Caribbean.

PADI seems like AMWAY, pyramid-like. Trying to get everyone to keep paying $$ to take their, what everyone on this post has been saying are meaningless, waste-of-money certifications.

AOW cert. requires 1 deep dive. Wow, magic, you're now ready to make a deep dive out there. More so than someone who has made many but is a mere OW diver??? Come on, folks, get over yourselves. This isn't Sea Hunt. Diving is recreation. Things can go bad but things can go bad riding a bike. People have heart attacks jogging. Know your equipment, know your limits & have some fun. Quit worrying about whether someone is "advanced", divemaster or whatever.

 

[jbd]

I don't agree Jim.

If an instructor teaches to his agencies standards in the manner they were taught and tested on when they became an instructor then they are, by definition, a good instructor. However, if the results are not what is desired, then it's the agency that is lacking. If you can't use your agencies training standards (to the letter and exactly as written) then you need to step up and demand MORE from the agency.

I understand and agree with your point Mike, however this is what I think Jerry is doing. He is asking for more from the agency--at least that is my take on his comments.

We can't expect instructors to teach material that they were never taught. We can't expect them to teach material that they were never taught to teach. Why should we expect them to write their own course and assume that risk.

What are we paying the agency for anyway?

If the instructors are never taught any of the material we are talking about, or taught how to teach it then diving instruction will never advance to a better level. NAUI's requirement for bouyancy control is-----well fiddlesticks--I can't find my S & P. Any ways its something like hover unsupported for 30 seconds or 1 minute (something to that affect) This is a minimum standard; NOT a maximum. I can ask the students to demonstrate a hover for longer--which I do through various training exercises.

The problem is, IMO, that too many instructors are taking minimum standards and treating them as maximums. Agencies need to clarify this issue and and start encouraging a better standard.