what makes a diving agency a diving agency?

[drrich2]

Thalassamania:

How many wide-spread agency programs are there available to the general public recreational diver wanna-be that meet the level of instruction you believe is appropriate? This isn't a skeptical challenge; I'm simply curious. As I recall you were involved in the composition of the NAUI Master Diver course (I recently bought the materials and started reading the manual; interesting stuff!). I'm trying to get a sense of what someone who wanted to be 'decently trained at the basic OW level' would aim for in formal training. Would it be:

1.) PADI - OW, AOW, Rescue?
2.) NAUI - OW, Rescue, Master Scuba Diver?
3.) Anybody OW, AOW & Rescue + pass GUE Fundamentals at the recreational level?

The common response to such questions on the forum is 'It's the instructor, not the agency,' but most people seeking basic OW training don't get a high degree of academic knowledge and then screen a few instructors to narrow it down, and no one instructor is widely available. So I think the 'what agency, and what formal coursework' is valid?

Richard.

P.S.: I know Jim Lapenta with SEI (now handling CMAS in the U.S. somehow, I believe) is reputable. In the U.S. it seems to my limited exposure that PADI, and to a lesser extent SSI, are the overwhelming market leaders in terms of numbers of dive shops/instructors.

 

[endurodog]

As on who is intimately familiar with entry level recreational diving training, having written the standards for such for a major agency and contributed to several entry level diving textbooks, I find the suggestion that I need to "audit" an entry level course to know what is being taught rather insulting, especially coming as it does from an individual who has not idea of what students are actually capable of in those courses that are out on the right hand tail of course quality

.

Thal we are all intimately familiar with how much you have done and how great you are. Just when someone thinks they are that good though is just when they need to step back and learn. I in my day job am considered and expert. I have testified on matter before the state house in my home state. I have written 2 published articles this year alone in a trade publication, ect, ect. I have always tried to keep an open mind to new learning, new teaching, and I for one could learn more by going back to entry level course. I am a judge in a system that has trainers and judges and I still participate in training, and I learn all the time from new students. I will continue to learn and hope that I never present the attitude that I was trained back in the day and you new people know nothing.

You and I have completely different attitudes about that.

You said things were not being taught or were obtuse in they way they were being taught. How bout saying exactly how one thing is being taught. How bout a simple one, no fly times, tell us how they are wrongly being taught??????? That is limit specific just like you stated.

Drop out rates higher than scuba. Motocross, hockey, football, fast pitch baseball. Any sport where youth is valued and all of those sports have vet leagues. All of these have vet classes and are available.

Don't tell me that I value the industry more than the diver, that would be like me saying you value your greatness more than the divers and the industry combined. Lets keep it to facts instead of personal attacks. Agreed????

I believe the diver can dive, can enjoy our sport, and more people will enjoy our sport in the present system than in any system you propose. The numbers of divers will drop and less people will be able to experince scuba all the while they are doing it in the present system without undue risk. Under your system 10's of thousands would never experince the joy of scuba because training would to long and costly. Has nothing to do with protecting the industry.

 

[Thalassamania]

That is the point exactly. At what point have we given a student enough training so that they are able to (within an acceptable margin) dive safely and at what point are we training beyond that to the point we are not getting divers in the sport. There needs to be that balance there so that we can keep people in the sport, so that business can make money, so that manufactures keep making stuff we want, so that we have a political voice for positive change (ocean, reef issues). Would Bob's issue in Puget Sound with the GPO gotten the play if divers didn't have a platform and numbers that were concerned.

Do you know how long it takes and how to design a diver training program to meet a given standard? Have you ever done it? Like most recreational instructors today it is unlikely that you were ever taught, or had to do more than follow the provided syllabus. Have you ever sat down with the proverbial blank piece of paper and designed a complete course and then delivered that course, optimizing it for the unforeseen after each course meeting? Few instructors, outside of higer education settings today, have. The agency higher-ups do not trust them with such a task. Believe it or not, the second week of every ITC I ever staffed was, in large part, organized around that objective, and the new instructors went home with a detailed set of objective and course outline that they had helped design and that they knew how to modify if and when needed.

Dive accident rates would be a prime indicator of the sucess or failure of that. While there is debate about the figures out there, there are figures out there and they suggest that accident rates have remaind stable or decreased. A great indicator of this in the United States is civil litigation (law suits). If lawyers got wind of a problem they would get the studies in line and go after the big pockets of the manufactures and the likes of PADI. A look at day time tv ads will let you know how aggresive those lawyers are and how far reaching they go.

As we have clearly gone over in the past, diving accidents are not a good measure, there are not good figures out there for anything except fatalities, and even there, most cases are settled out of court with non-disclosure agreements in effect ... so you (and I, and everyone else) know nothing about them.

Thal we are all intimately familiar with how much you have done and how great you are.

No, actually you know very little about me despite your willingness express your opinion on the subject.

Just when someone thinks they are that good though is just when they need to step back and learn. I in my day job am considered and expert. I have testified on matter before the state house in my home state. I have written 2 published articles this year alone in a trade publication, ect, ect.

Bully for you, we each need to learn, each and every day, anyway that we can. But if you want to play that stupid game (a logical fallacy called, "appeal to authority) be my guest. I'll happily match you, paper for paper and have dozens and dozens left over, not to mention invited testimony before many groups up to and including one chaired by the Vice President of the United States. So let's not play that game, it only makes us both look foolish.

I have always tried to keep an open mind to new learning, new teaching, and I for one could learn more by going back to entry level course.

I believe you.

I am a judge in a system that has trainers and judges and I still participate in training, and I learn all the time from new students. I will continue to learn and hope that I never present the attitude that I was trained back in the day and you new people know nothing.

You and I have completely different attitudes about that.

Actually, if that is your true attitude we see perfectly eye to eye. I can recite, in my sleep, what you do with respect to diver training, can you do the same with respect to me. or even with respect to a more generalized, "back in the day"?

You said things were not being taught or were obtuse in they way they were being taught. How bout saying exactly how one thing is being taught. How bout a simple one, no fly times, tell us how they are wrongly being taught??????? That is limit specific just like you stated.

Asked and answered.

Drop out rates higher than scuba. Motocross, hockey, football, fast pitch baseball. Any sport where youth is valued and all of those sports have vet leagues. All of these have vet classes and are available.

No, most of these folks play more than a single season, more than five to ten games/events before departing the activity. I see a difference between "outgrowing" something and dropping out.

Don't tell me that I value the industry more than the diver, that would be like me saying you value your greatness more than the divers and the industry combined. Lets keep it to facts instead of personal attacks. Agreed????

A little late for you to be suggesting that.

I believe the diver can dive, can enjoy our sport, and more people will enjoy our sport in the present system than in any system you propose. The numbers of divers will drop and less people will be able to experince scuba all the while they are doing it in the present system without undue risk. Under your system 10's of thousands would never experince the joy of scuba because training would to long and costly. Has nothing to do with protecting the industry.

You clearly stated that the time and money trumped all, that is, if uncorrected, "protecting the industry."

 

[Hepcat62]

The common response to such questions on the forum is 'It's the instructor, not the agency,' but most people seeking basic OW training don't get a high degree of academic knowledge and then screen a few instructors to narrow it down, and no one instructor is widely available. So I think the 'what agency, and what formal coursework' is valid?

I'm looking forward to hearing Thal's answer on this one as well.

My 2 cents: As you said, it really is the instructor - not the agency. That said, certain agencies make going above and beyond the minimum standards rather difficult. I'm not aware of any ubiquitously available programs that would meet my criteria for answering that question, taking instructor choice out of the equation. The closest would probably be something like the GUE and UTD open water programs, only because their standards for gaining an instructor rating are relatively quite high (making instructor choice a bit less of an issue), and their published standards for what constitutes mastery at a given level are comprehensive. Thal would probably say that there are still large gaps in those programs when compared to his 100 hour program, and I have no doubt that he's correct about that. I'd still say they probably constitute a more CONSISTENTLY high quality choice when compared to most other recreational diving agencies.

 

[endurodog]

A little late for you to be suggesting that.
."

Thal please tell me how I have personally attacked you?????

I have no idea about something. What do you know about what I know??

You can down play the accident rate all you want but it is the best indicator we have, until something better comes along. Tell me what we can use as a better indicator? You have nothing except your "preception" of what you think is going on with accident rates.

So it's a little late for me to suggest to a SCUBABOARD board guide that its a little late to stop the perosnal attacks??????

You never answered how the teaching of limits was not being conducted properly you only gave a sweeping response. So lets hear it on the one thing alone, flying times after diving?

I never stated that money trumped all, you are the only one saying that. I have a more overall view of the subject. I see it as a complicated issue involving consumers, resorts, people in the sport to include present divers and pro level people, and the political side of things. With it all boiling down to what level of training is required to scuba dive within a reasonalbe amount of risk. The first and foremost consideration It would be that standards don't put divers in unreasonable risks. So don't tell me what drives my arguements. If you don't understand it I will gladly answer your questions. I don't state what drives your positions and I won't without asking. I would expect the same


---------- Post Merged at 11:26 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 10:48 PM ----------

And for the record in my day job I have written standards, objectives, course outlines, test, and the such for that field. So yes I have contray to your statements trying to talk down to me.

 

[Thalassamania]

There are some good competent instructors in all the agencies, often as not they are handcuffed by juvenile texts that they are forced to use, overly stiff standards that are at the same time too low and too restrictive and agencies who, at base level, do not respect them.

Jim impresses me as a good competent instructor who has escaped from that trap. BoulderJohn and Peter appear to me to be PADI instructors who know how to think outside the PADI box and find creative ways to maneuver through the restrictive PADI thicket. Bob (Greateful Diver) seems to know how to deliver a quality NAUI course (but then NAUI, like SEI, does little to get in the way, making it clear that their affiliated instructors have significant academic freedom).

PADI and SSI are the dominant forces. In my opinion their materials are the worst available and their average instructors the least capable.

Now let's look at your three scenarios:

1.) PADI - OW, AOW, Rescue? - Likely the weakest of the three, three programs with little opportunity for deviation, the best you'll wind up with here is the sum of the three courses, less a bit for repetition and things that are lost (with the exception of a few rare instructors) like teaching neutral, sufficient gas planning, etc. The format of the courses does not lend itself to a holistic approach that integrates the skills in a smooth flow and thus makes the courses multiplicative or better.

2.) NAUI - OW, Rescue, Master Scuba Diver? - This, by definition, should be the best sequence. A NAUI Master Diver is supposed to posses all the water skills and diving knowledge that is expected of a NAUI Instructor ... all that should be missing are the group control, teaching theory, business of diving, legal aspects and NAUI procedures sections. However ... from what I have seen a lot of older NAUI CDs are starting to burn out and many of the new ones are not as good. NAUI granting permission for very small ITCs with minimal staff has significantly eroded the quality of such programs and the QC that used to be part and parcel of having a staff of ten to twenty who were always looking over the CD's shoulder.

3.) Anybody OW, AOW & Rescue + pass GUE Fundamentals at the recreational level? - This is likely the most capable diver that you'll find given the three options, but that is because not all NAUI Instuctors are, from what I have seen and heard, living up to what a NAUI Master Diver should be. Fundies, in this case is both a course and a hurdle, divers getting over that hurdle, even with a recreational pass, must demonstrate rather clear competence. I see slight problems here with over dependence on equipment and "cave blindness" as it relates to the things like snorkel use and free diving skills.

As far as, 'It's the instructor, not the agency,' is concerned: This would be true were we comparing apples and oranges, but we are not. With some rather minor exceptions you can run a NAUI course using PADI materials and schedules ... but the converse is not true. It is possible for a NAUI course to be nothing more than a PADI course at its worst ... with a little rescue thrown in. At the other extreme, however, a NAUI course, run by an instructor who understands how to effectively use the academic freedom permitted by NAUI to custom tune his program to the students' needs will be hard to beat. This level of variance will not exist within PADI, the strictures do not permit it. So it is not just the agency, nor is it just the instructor, but rather ... the major differences lie in the large interactive term of the agency and the instructor ... to attempt to tease them apart is to loose the power of the combination amidst foolish reductionist noise.

I'm looking forward to hearing Thal's answer on this one as well. My 2 cents: As you said, it really is the instructor - not the agency. That said, certain agencies make going above and beyond the minimum standards rather difficult. I'm not aware of any ubiquitously available programs that would meet my criteria for answering that question, taking instructor choice out of the equation. The closest would probably be something like the GUE and UTD open water programs, only because their standards for gaining an instructor rating are relatively quite high (making instructor choice a bit less of an issue), and their published standards for what constitutes mastery at a given level are comprehensive. Thal would probably say that there are still large gaps in those programs when compared to his 100 hour program, and I have no doubt that he's correct about that. I'd still say they probably constitute a more CONSISTENTLY high quality choice when compared to most other recreational diving agencies.

I hope that my answer entertains. I have a lot of respect for the GUE and UTD open water programs, and some differences.

They do an excellent job in about six-tenths the time of a 100 hr course (note: that is not MY course, nor is it Thal's course, it is a course that has been run, with minor changes to accommodate advances in equipment since 1952. It is Jim Stewart's course and Lloyd Austin's course and Glen Egstrom's course and Lee Somer's course. I am but on in a long chain that came before me and continues on after me).

They have defined their target well, preparing a new team member to take a position as a junior team member in a team. Team, team, team ... that's the key to their success and to the effectiveness of what they do. My problems with their approach have less to do with training and its effectiveness and more to do with underlying philosophy. I favor building scuba skills, rather anticlimactically, on top of well tuned free diving skills while UTD and GUE believe that they can create an standardized and equipment dependent situation that will permit a diver to never run out of gas nor be in danger of choking on inhaled water. While I will grant the former, especially in a team format, the latter gives me pause.

 

[DCBC]

...I'm trying to get a sense of what someone who wanted to be 'decently trained at the basic OW level' would aim for in formal training. Would it be:

1.) PADI - OW, AOW, Rescue?
2.) NAUI - OW, Rescue, Master Scuba Diver?
3.) Anybody OW, AOW & Rescue + pass GUE Fundamentals at the recreational level?

The common response to such questions on the forum is 'It's the instructor, not the agency,' but most people seeking basic OW training don't get a high degree of academic knowledge and then screen a few instructors to narrow it down, and no one instructor is widely available. So I think the 'what agency, and what formal coursework' is valid?

Richard, In some situations, PADI fails despite the Instructor (the Instructor cannot withhold certification if PADI's minimalist requirements are attained). NAUI (and some other Agencies) succeed in most situations because of the Instructor (the Instructors ability to add to "minimum requirements"). GUI succeeds because of the Agency. The Rec I course is "at least fifty hours" and the student must be a non-smoker, physically/mentally fit and able to swim at least 300 yards in under fourteen minutes without stopping. A sure fire way to success.