The Philosophy of Diver Training

[DCBC]

Interesting couple of posts from Diver0001 and DCBC because both appear to be an accurate statement of PADI rules as far as I can tell. The problem is that they are discussing two different things - R because he is trying to be helpful (in my opinion) and DCBC because he had such a bad experience which has resulted in the very low opinion.

Let's be "perfectly clear" about "PADI Standards" -- there is a huge gray area and that gray area is:

What is Mastery?

What is "beyond the scope" of the Class? and

What is within the "scope of expanded discussion" of topics?

This, BTW, was the subject of a thread I started while doing my IDC since in one of the UW Journal articles that I was required to read there was a discussion similar to what R and D are having (without the vitriol). THERE IS NO DEFINITIVE ANSWER to the question at the border.

I think it is clear that DCBC would be wrong to add "Rescue" to the requirements under the standards since there is NO "rescue" portion of OW. Likewise, just because one may dive at altitude would not necessitate learning the altitude tables.

BUT, if one was learning diving where I originally did (at 3000+ feet), learning the altitude tables would seem to be a natural, and mandatory, part of the course and a reasonable "expansion" of the basics of the OW course. Likewise, learning how to clear one's mask without silting out the area would also seem to be a reasonable "expansion" of the basic required skills (neutral buoyancy, hovering and mask clearing) in areas where that is important. (That skill, BTW, was one that may have gotten me into a wee bit of a problem but THAT is another thread.)

Where is the line? I think the line is -- are the skills "introduced" already in the course and are you merely refining them (R) or are you introducing new "skills" because you think you know better (D).

Thank you for the clarification Peter. I think that PADI's perspective is a different philosophy than is taken by many of the other certification agencies. In my discussions with PADI HQ, it was made clear that the reason for holding the line so tightly, was for:

1. QA Purposes

When you think about it, it makes sense that from a QA perspective, it is beneficial to understand what a PADI OW course really entails. It was my understanding that it was PADI's intention for a course run in Halifax to be the same as one run offered in Sydney. Because the course is finite (as per specific standards), it may be more easily assessed. I believe PADI has achieved one of the best levels of QA in the industry for this reason.

In-fact I see this as a bit of a problem for non-PADI courses. The certification requirements with CMAS, ACUC, NAUI and other agencies are not always the requirements as set-down by the agency. Minimum Requirements + Instructor Requirements (often dictated by Instructor preference and local diving conditions) = Certification Requirements. It is therefore impossible to completely understand the scope of training delivered to the diver, as the instructor is a wild-card.

2. Revenue

PADI made it clear to me that the system was modular and was to be presented in the format outlined by standards. If I taught rescue skills in an OW program, how was I to get them back on a Rescue Course? This was outside the box and I was to hold solely to the Standards. In any regard, I would not be covered by PADI insurance if I taught outside of the specifics of the program.

As I owned a PADI Training Facility, the financial argument was indeed a factor and from this perspective, PADI made a lot of sense. They are the most successful diving certification agency for a reason and it's not by providing additional instruction for free.

I was not however content to let divers dive as a responsible buddy, not having the knowledge and skill-sets to affect a rescue. For me, it was a matter of personal integrity. To my knowledge, PADI is the only agency that doesn't incorporate rescue into its OW (or equivalent) program. Other instructors may not have a problem with this, which is their prerogative; unfortunately I do.

 

[The Chairman]

Only if their skills allow them to dive in the North Atlantic. Then you must TRAIN them for that, even if you don't certify that specifically. Well, now we understand your need for PADI bashing. Of course, we only know YOUR SIDE of this story here, but your persona gives us lots of clues about what probably really transpired. The "I taught it my way!" attitude is frowned on by most training agencies.

As BoulderJohn would attest: our understanding of the dynamics of education and training have undergone a number of evolutions and even at least one revolution. What should be taught and how it should be taught are in constant evolution by the various training agencies and so they should be! SDI led the charge for on-line learning which is slowly being accepted by most agencies with NAUI being the odd man out at this juncture. SDI also led the charge for the teaching of PDCs only in OW: NO TABLES!

It's obvious to me that DCBC wants his old Scuba Classes back. He understood them, they made sense to him and he liked the macho of it all. In order to combat this educational evolution, he has (in my mind) intentionally and systematically misrepresented at least one training agency to make the case that their "philosophy" of changing to meet our understanding of education is somehow abhorrent and contemptible. I call Shenanigans. It appears the that old dog resents the new tricks!

The IGFA was recently sued over one of their "Certified Observers". This certified observer was trained to facilitate bill fishing tournaments by riding with a fishing team on their boat and to certify what transpired. When there is big money there are big cheats, and these certified observers are there to keep things honest. But the diminutive/sickly person on one boat was soon injured in the 8Ft+ seas during one tournament. The boat was required to take them and could not refuse them for any reason. Consequently, they lost their chance to score big money for having to take care of this individual. They sued the IGFA and I believe that they won!

The IGFA has approached this issue in a peculiar fashion: they will no longer "certify" anyone. They only "train" observers now. The BSA has been undergoing similar issues and they are going down the same road and it was suggested that we may see a lot more emphasis on what "certified" actuall means in tort law.

I bring this up to demonstrate the fact that as an instructor, in order "certify" divers I must train them first. I must indeed train them to able to meet the rigors of the environment in which I will certify them in. To do anything less would be abhorrent and contemptible as well as ethically, morally and legally indefensible. The same would be true were I to expose them to any skill set that could possibly injure or kill the participant(s). Take buddy breathing for instance. When would buddy breathing be essential? When you are both out of air and your buddy does not have an additional second stage for you to breath off. How many times has your buddy NOT had an additional second? Why did YOU dive with them then?

Obviously, this skill has limited use in actual diving. However, an instructor teaching this with two students has a real problem when they ascend: they have to watch BOTH divers simultaneously. In reality, you can't give your undivided attention to BOTH students at the same time. This skill resulted in a number of injuries and has ultimately been pulled from most every agency's tested skill set. YAY! Still, I train my students in buddy breathing horizontally as a confidence builder. No, I don't certify them as proficient to do this in OW, but I do train them. BIG difference.

 

[Diver0001]

I was under the impression that buddy breathing has become a stated "do not teach this to OW students" item.

Yes that's right. The the one thing DCBC and I completely concur on is that we should be able (or even required) to teach it.

R..

 

[DCBC]

You're using TEST and TEACH synonymously. I think we already established that these diliberate misdirections are central to your POV.

To me, there is no reason to teach a skill, unless you can test the skill that you have taught. You obviously feel that teaching is sufficient and testing isn't a factor. I disagree.

But that's MY POV... Your POV. Your OPINION. But FACTS and OPINION are not the same.

You would have me think that my perspective is opinion and yours is fact. Again I disagree. All we each have is our point-of-view.

One thing that I do believe to be a fact, is that I'm wasting my time discussing this with you. You seem to enjoy calling me a lair while you thump your chest; the savior of the discussion board. Phone PADI and ask the questions; find out the facts!

 

[DCBC]

I bring this up to demonstrate the fact that as an instructor, in order "certify" divers I must train them first. I must indeed train them to able to meet the rigors of the environment in which I will certify them in. To do anything less would be abhorrent and contemptible as well as ethically, morally and legally indefensible.

...No, I don't certify them as proficient to do this in OW, but I do train them. BIG difference.

What instructor agency(s) are you certified through NetDoc?

 

[Jim Lapenta]

And I also do not see why teaching a few basic rescue skills is outside the scope of the course. If you are going to talk about diving with a buddy and tell them that the buddy is there to help them if they need why would you not at least show them unconscious diver, panicked diver, and the basic tows. Why would you not have them support a buddy at the surface who has lost buoyancy. Had this been done in at least once incident I know of a diver would not be dead. And rather than discourage them to take rescue I have found that by doing the basics in OW and expanding on those in AOW with the dives I do, it gets them thinking more seriously about the full rescue course where the focus is not only on assisting but also on prevention. Students who have heard about how grueling some rescue courses can be and despite being fun seem to shy away from them. They think "that's too tough for me". But have them bring a diver up from depth in OW or AOW, support someone at the surface, do a tow while stripping gear and suddenly a full rescue course does not sound so difficult. In fact the new confidence may give them the encouragement and impetus to take that next step. I don't see my boss's wife doing rescue for several reasons. But him I do after a little more time and experience. He is talking about it based on what he did in our OW class. He sees the need and that even at 62 he is not too old to do it.

 

[Kingpatzer]

In your words "the bar is basically set for the easiest conditions... let's say the tropics." If I'm training a student in the North Atlantic, if they can meet the standards i.e. the bar, I must certify them period.

From the Instructor Manual:

Mastery is defined as performing the skill so it meets the stated performance requirements in a reasonably comfortable, fluid, repeatable manner as would be expected of an Open Water Diver.

Now, I am personally of the view that taking the students into someplace like the North Atlantic for check-out dives is poor judgment for any OW certification because students can and do react differently in OW than in confined water, and taking them into particularly difficult conditions is, well, stupid.

The manual does have a standard that:

You must conduct the Open Water Dives at a dive site with conditions and environment suitable for beginning divers.

All local dives are not suitable for beginning divers. In which case, according to the manual, students must be instructed that:

Once you finish this course, dive in an environment and in conditions as good as or
better than those with which you have training and/or experience, or with a professional level diver.

Instructor expectations of what is appropriate for a beginning level diver is left to instructor judgment. If your judgment is that beginning open water students should be able to dive the Andria Doria on air, then you have an obligation to train to that level. Of course, you may find that you need to defend your capacity to make sound judgment, but that is up to you.

All of that said, "reasonable comfortable, fluid, repeatable manner as would be expected of an Open Water Diver" means exactly that. If in your judgment that means "able to do it once on a platform in perfect conditions," then that is a result of your judgment, and again, that is something you may find yourself having to defend.

 

[Diver0001]

To me, there is no reason to teach a skill, unless you can test the skill that you have taught. You obviously feel that teaching is sufficient and testing isn't a factor. I disagree.

I guess I just don't need to see a letter grade before I decide if someone gets it or not.

You would have me think that my perspective is opinion and yours is fact. Again I disagree. All we each have is our point-of-view.

This sidebar is not about me. It's about you and about your PADI bashing. Opinion is not fact. I don't see you getting that yet.

One thing that I do believe to be a fact, is that I'm wasting my time discussing this with you. You seem to enjoy calling me a lair while you thump your chest; the savior of the discussion board. Phone PADI and ask the questions; find out the facts!

This discussion is not about me. I can understand this upsets you and you must be feeling exposed by it but I'm calling you on your PADI bashing and I'm not going to let you off the hook.

R..

 

[DCBC]

I'm calling you on your PADI bashing and I'm not going to let you off the hook.

I wouldn't ask that you do. I would however ask that you get the facts before you call someone a liar.

If someone has an experience with an agency, equipment manufacturer, or an individual and relates that experience, I don't see that as bashing. Bashing (in my view) is saying something that isn't true about an agency, equipment manufacturer, or an individual. Like when you called me a liar, that's bashing.

 

[Kingpatzer]

If someone has an experience with an agency, equipment manufacturer, or an individual and relates that experience, I don't see that as bashing.

How many years has it been since you were an active PADI instructor? Have you taken an IDC course, and when? Have you been to a CD training course? When?
Do you have a current Instructor Manual? Have you had recent conversations with instructor examiners, CD's or PADI's training department to clarify how to interpret the various statements made in the standards? Are you aware of the difference between agency standards and recommendations?

I had experience in the Army 20 years ago, where I was a trainer for one of the most difficult courses in the world. I would not presume that experience makes me an expert on today's military training.