Universal certification standards

[Rhenry]

I am new to diving, I received my OW cert this year. It struck me as funny when I went in to get certified, there was the PADI course, then the NAUI course and the list goes on. I asked the dumb question of the day, whats the difference? Is one better then the other? The answers I got were basically they all provide the same certification but with slightly different methods. The other answer was not they are all about the same, its a personal preference. The instructor that was there on the day I walked in was a NAUI instructor, naturally was talking NAUI up over the others, he said the training material in his option was better. I signed up for the PADI course, I had seen this around the world in my tour of duty with the U.S. Navy, so it seemed logical to go PADI. I liked the course, but was dismayed that the training material was thin, no cd like my fellow NAUI students had, I just had the tape that I had to return. The dive tables were different; it was like we were taking two totally different courses. This brought up the question why? I will not go on, but needless to say the standard is whatever the agency thinks it is.

This brings me to the real question, Why isn't there a standard, were we all use the same dive tables, the same dive routine for qualification, the same training ,material, etc. I work in the telecommunication field, we have many different agencies that I work with, but we do have one universal standard that we must all follow. Why don't we have the same sort of universal standard?
The second more concerning issue to me is why are all the dive tables so different? How can you come up with to very different repeptive dive times? Is it rolling the dice as to which one is better?

Ron

 

[cgvmer]

Because they attempt to differentiate themselves from other agencies. BTWVD is optional (more $) with PADI.

 

[rstofer]

PADI certainly has a DVD and it is highly recommended for younger people who learn better by watching than reading.

The dive tables ARE different and have different NDLs. The NAUI tables are all on one side, a very nice feature as it leaves the back side for the dive planner graphic. There are also different assumptions on dive time. For PADI, the time starts when you begin the descent and ends when you start a direct ascent to the surface. For NAUI, the time starts when you descend from the surface and stops when you again reach the surface. PADI has a lot more pressure groups. NAUI used to have more groups than they do today but they dropped some back in '89 (and they didn't tell me!). NAUI also includes some decompression information for dives that exceed the NDL.

Today, PADI relies on the eRDP (calculator) rather than the tables. It is a lot faster to learn and provides the correct answer to pressure group and Adjusted No Decompression Limit. But, in my view, that approach lacks context. I LIKE seeing which group I am in and looking at various SITs in anticipation of my ANDLs. And the calculator doesn't work nearly as well underwater as my NAUI tables. Just in case...

Nobody cares about tables (except me!) because everybody wants to use a computer. In fact, multilevel diving almost requires a computer because multilevel dive planners (eg PADI Wheel) make the assumption that you know the profile before you dive. Nonsense! I have never known the profile in advance. Or, you can use the Wheel to find out how much trouble you are in after you complete the dive. That's not entirely useful...

We could all agree to use the U.S. Navy tables but we won't. It can be argued that most agencies derived their tables from the Navy tables.

But discussing NAUI vs PADI vs SSI vs (fill in the blanks) is like arguing religion. You really don't want to go there. If all of the agencies used IDENTICAL training, what would differentiate them? Why not just dump all the smaller agencies and nominate PADI as king of the universe? Oh, that would be because a number of old time divers consider PADI standards as far below minimal. Besides, I prefer NAUI for the very important reason that it is the one I used. Actually, in the old days (circa '88), they had a pretty good program: OW I, OW II, AOW, Rescue.

What do you really learn in OW? Flood and clear mask, something about buoyancy, a little taste of navigation, how to make a controlled ascent, one attempt at a Controlled Swimming Emergency Ascent, ditch and don BC on surface and a couple of other skills and that's about it. It doesn't make much difference which agency you select, the skills are about the same. Just enough to stay alive long enough to take AOW + Rescue.

That's the secret to diving. Acknowledge that OW is just a minimal introduction to diving and immediately sign up for AOW and Rescue. And take all the specialties that were included in the old NAUI sequence that PADI now charges extra for. Search & recovery, Deep, Night, etc. Get to the PADI MSD level as fast as you can using only specialties that require swimming. Go ahead and take Nitrox and Equipment Specialist (they are useful) but take 5 swimming specialties. By that point you will be far enough along to dive safely.

There are those that preach for a 100+ hour course at the OW level. They are correct. Nobody wants to hear it and nobody cares, but they are correct. You just don't learn enough in OW to do anything except take more classes. The problem is simple; nobody wants to spend that much time learning to dive. "Hurry up! I am leaving for Cozumel tomorrow!"

Nobody supports a universal standard because that could only come from governmental regulation. And NOBODY wants that!

Richard

 

[siikik]

First, congrats on your certification!

My thoughts.... I was certified NASDS AOW (no OW with them) in 1987 and Expert in the following year. Recently, my wife took the SSI OW course and I cannot tell you about all the differences that I see as lack of education. And supposedly the same philosophy was adopted when the two agencies merged. Back in those days, even PADI had higher standards and innovations... I was one of the first divers to use "the wheel" before it was officially adopted... thanks to a good friend and PADI instructor. All this has changed now.

My thoughts on a standard? Sure, it's great, but every agency will bicker about who will define the standard and when it all comes down to it, it will be the lowest it can possibly be yet still be acceptably safe.... come to think of it... it might already be that way.



Ken

 

[drilldaddy_99]

If we all used the same materials, standards, instruction, dive tables, etc there would be no need to have different agencies.

And the RSTC is what standardizes a few of the agencies. WRSTC :: World Recreational Scuba Training Council I don't tink NAUI is a member of the RSTC (at least it isn't listed on the web site). They have set the MINIMUM skills and standards that agencies must follow. They are, of course, free to add to the standards as long as they don't take anything away from them.

 

[egp]

In fact there are standards that cross agencies. The most popular agencies, such as PADI, SSI, SDI, etc) collaborate to create the minimum standards, then they make sure that their training meets or exceeds those minimum standards. Visit the Recreational Scuba Training Council .

As has been said often in various threads, usually the choice of instructor is more important than the agency. Ask around with friends, and other customers for instructor recommendations. Avoid the temptation to let price dictate the choice.


[after posting, I realized that drilldaddy beat me by a few minutes...]

 

[Jim Lapenta]

The RSTC does not set standards. They are set by the member agencies. Since agencies have their own ideas as to what minimums are it seems to me that the RSTC standards are nothing more than some of the things the member agencies have in common. NAUI is not a member of the RSTC. THere are alot of agencies that are not members. Some teach way beyond the standards set by the RSTC others not so far above them. Some agencies base their training models on education others on profit. The RSTC accomodates all of them by having standards so low as to be laughable. Even so at least their are some. However no agency is required to follow them at all if they are not members of the RSTC. They have no regulatory powers whatsoever as far as the industry is concerned. Any member agency at any time could say hey we think the standards you do have are too strict(that would be big joke) and we want to put even more people in the water faster so screw you guys we're out. The RSTC could do absolutley nothing to them except say that they are no longer a member. They could not stop them from issuing certs, could not revoke instructors cards, could not do a thing. So to say they regulate anything is a false statement. They are nothing more than a tool lawyers for the agencies can use to say hey we trained Joe Blow to some minimum standards ( that we came up with to keep the feds out of our hair) and so if he died as a result of a diving accident it's his fault. Get a list of the agencies that do not belong to RSTC, they far outnumber the ones that do. Yet they continue to produce divers with no regulation from the RSTC. And many good divers as well. RSTC membership is not a guarantee of a thorough diving education. It guarantees the minimum skills necessary to survive in OW and even that sometimes is questionable when you see the caliber of some divers in the water today.

 

[Walter]

Why isn't there a standard, were we all use the same dive tables, the same dive routine for qualification, the same training ,material, etc. I work in the telecommunication field, we have many different agencies that I work with, but we do have one universal standard that we must all follow. Why don't we have the same sort of universal standard?

Because dive training is not regulated by the government. Even if dive training were regulated by the government, it is unlikely that the regulations would not allow standards to be exceeded. In that case, some agencies would likely follow the regulations to the letter while others would exceed them. Basically, that's what we have without regulation. Different agencies disagree on the best way to teach diving. If you and I both teach diving, why should you have to teach the exact same way I teach? Is your opinion less valuable than mine? Conversely, if I believe I have a better way to teach, why should I have to conform to your methods which I may believe to be dangerous?

It is up to the individual to look into the differences from one class to another and choose wisely. The class you took may have been excellent or it may have been poor, but your reasoning was far from sound. "I signed up for the PADI course, I had seen this around the world in my tour of duty with the U.S. Navy, so it seemed logical to go PADI." Hmmmm, I'm look for a place to eat with excellent food and I've never been in this town before, I wonder what's good. I could do some research and ask around or I could look for a place that looks familiar - golden arches? I've seen them all over the world - must be the best choice for a great meal...

The second more concerning issue to me is why are all the dive tables so different? How can you come up with to very different repeptive dive times?

There was a time when all training in the US used the US Navy tables. You could find other tables in other parts of the world, but even many other parts of the world used the US Navy tables. Around 1988, PADI issued it's own tables called the RDP (Recreational Dive Planner) because they said they were not convinced the Navy tables were safe enough for recreational use. The RDP had shorter NDLs (no decompression limits) for most depths, so on fuirst glance, they looked to be safer. OTOH, they allowed surface intervals of less than 10 minutes, they allowed longer repetitive dives and they cleared in 6 hours instead of 12. Are they really safer? Other agencies were also concerned about the NDLs of the US Navy tables, so some of them modified the Navy tables by reducing the NDLs while keeping the repetitive groups and surface intervals unchanged resulting in tables that were more conservative than either the original Navy tables or the RDP. Unfortunately, they didn't all make exactly the same changes in the tables, so some are more conservative at one depth while others are more conservative at other depths. Causes a little confusion because there's no clear answer as to which table is more conservative. NAUI went so far as to change their tables so they clear in 24 hours instead of 12. Since then, more research into decompression theory has taken place and new theories have resulted in new tables being developed.

Is it rolling the dice as to which one is better?

Could be. Or you could do a little bit of research. First ask yourself what is better - more bottom time or a more conservative approach to decompression? If it's more bottom time, toss all the tables out the window and dive as long as you have air. You can name me as beneficiary on your life insurance. I do not recommend this approach. If a conservative approach is what you believe to be better, look at the available tables and make your choice. In case you'd like to compare, I'll add a little info from a post I made here a few years ago.

A comparison of tables is more difficult than a comparison of standards. Repetitive diving is key to how conservative/liberal a table might be. Comparing repetitive dives is what makes it difficult. I'll be happy to share a comparison of NDL's for various tables.

Listed from most conservative to most liberal at each depth (ties in alphabetical order)

40' -- 130 min (tie) Spencer & NAUI; 135 min Michigan; 140 min PADI; 150 min YMCA; 175 min DCIEM and 200 min US Navy.

50' -- 70 min Spencer; 75 min (tie) DCIEM & Michigan; 80 min (tie) NAUI, PADI & YMCA; and 100 min US Navy.

60' -- 50 min (tie) DCIEM, Michigan, Spencer & YMCA; 55 min (tie) NAUI & PADI and 60 min US Navy.

70' -- 35 min DCIEM; 40 min (tie) Michigan, PADI, Spencer & YMCA; 45 min NAUI and 50 min US Navy.

80' -- 25 min DCIEM; 30 min (tie) Michigan, PADI, Spencer & YMCA; 35 min NAUI and 40 min US Navy.

90' -- 20 min (tie) DCIEM & YMCA; 25 min (tie) Michigan, NAUI, PADI & Spencer and 30 min US Navy.

100' -- 15 min DCIEM; 18 min YMCA; 20 min (tie) Michigan, PADI & Spencer; 22 min NAUI and 25 min US Navy.

110' -- 12 min DCIEM; 13 min YMCA; 15 min (tie) Michigan, NAUI & Spencer; 16 min PADI and 20 min US Navy.

120' -- 10 min (tie) DCIEM, Michigan, Spencer & YMCA; 12 min NAUI; 13 min PADI and 15 min US Navy.

130' -- 5 min (tie) Michigan, Spencer & YMCA; 8 min (tie) DCIEM & NAUI and 10 min (tie) PADI & US Navy.

Spencer is not a set of tables, but rather a set doppler tests that showed where silent (no symptoms) bubbles were not present.

NAUI tables clear after 24 hours, DCIEM after 18 hours, Michigan, US Navy & YMCA after 12 hours and PADI after 6 hours. PADI's tables are also known as the RDP. Repetitive dives can drastically change the ranking.

 

[lowviz]

I work in the telecommunication field, we have many different agencies that I work with, but we do have one universal standard that we must all follow. Why don't we have the same sort of universal standard?
The second more concerning issue to me is why are all the dive tables so different?
Ron

Other than physics itself, I disagree that there is a universal standard for telecom.

The fact that you are questioning differences in dive tables implies that you actually read and thought about them. Congratulations to you. The tables aren't really so different due to the massive nonlinearity of the problem. Pick a table and plot depth and time vs pressure group from with software such as TableCurve3D or something like it. Use 1 for A, 2 for B, etc. to encode the pressure group as the Z value. The resulting surface will be most visually enlightening. What it boils down to is that the loading clock runs ever faster as you descend. How close to the edge you want to go is up to you, and you are not analytically definable or even constant from day to day, thus a strict standard becomes a matter of statistics and generalities. If you really care, watch your ascent rate on every dive. What you are discussing is nitrogen loading, the simple procedure for getting rid of it FOR REAL (your body and your loading) is often short-changed by divers.

It's not the instructor, agency, standards, or the literature -it's about what you take away and use on your dives. As you seem to know, you are allowed to learn from sources other than your certifying agency. Stay well within the 'standards' for now and question everything as you progress.

 

[Web Monkey]

I liked the course, but was dismayed that the training material was thin, no cd like my fellow NAUI students had, I just had the tape that I had to return. The dive tables were different; it was like we were taking two totally different courses.

. . .

follow. Why don't we have the same sort of universal standard?
The second more concerning issue to me is why are all the dive tables so different? How can you come up with to very different repeptive dive times? Is it rolling the dice as to which one is better?

All dive tables (and computers) are built on algorithms that the creators believe model on-gassing and off-gassing in an average human. However, since none of the models are perfect and the chances of anybody being "exactly average" are slim, there are a ton of different tables and computers available.

Terry