Who is concerned about OW diver training?

[Jax]

So are you TRYING to start a debate on how many dives one needs to become a DM, or do I have to wait for the next thread to come along?

:cool2:

Why is there a debate? Isn't there a standard?

 

[Cave Diver]

So are you TRYING to start a debate on how many dives one needs to become a DM, or do I have to wait for the next thread to come along?

:cool2:

My *personal* opinion is that # of dives has no relevance. Hours logged might be a bit better of an indication, but that's still not perfect either. I think progression or acceptance into an advanced level (tech/professional) should be based on a pre-course evaluation.

Luckily for most people, I don't run the world though.

 

[Cave Diver]

Why is there a debate? Isn't there a standard?

# of dives does not equate to quality of dives.

If the standard is 50 dives, one applicant could have 50 lake dives, at 30' for 20 minutes each. Another could have 50 dives in the North Atlantic, doing 1 1/2 hour wreck dives in 6' seas. Arbitrary numbers dont tell the whole story...

 

[Jax]

True, but that is how "they" count experience, is it not?

 

[RJP]

Why is there a debate? Isn't there a standard?

Yes, there is a standard debate.

:cool2:

 

[FireInMyBones]

# of dives does not equate to quality of dives.

I have to agree. Truth be told, I do not have the number of dives most people who dive with me think I have. I happen to study hard and drill skills almost every dive. When I dive for the heck of it, I just float around enjoying the peaceful aspects of the dive.

When I went for Decompression Procedures, I finished the required number of dives mid class. The instructor and I had a preassessment dive before I was allowed to join the class, but in the end the # was less important. I was glad for this. Now I continue to practice and do side research.

Ultimately, this is why I am holding off on becoming a DM a little longer. I want to have a good bit of experience in a variety of situations before I am held responsible for the lives of students and basic OW divers.

If the standard is 50 dives, one applicant could have 50 lake dives, at 30' for 20 minutes each. Another could have 50 dives in the North Atlantic, doing 1 1/2 hour wreck dives in 6' seas. Arbitrary numbers dont tell the whole story...

This is another reason I do feel strongly about the quality of dive training. I see too many people flouting large #s of logged dives...all in warm shallow waters. Some of them really make me nervous.

 

[Cave Diver]

True, but that is how "they" count experience, is it not?

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ba.../272626-what-does-experience-really-mean.html

 

[Blackwood]

I will often read part, but generally not most of the threads, unless something unique comes up that grabs my interest (in which case I'm likely to participate).

 

[Kingpatzer]

Enroll the majority of them in some sort of advanced driving program and they'll likely find that they aren't as proficient as they originally thought.

Certainly, but even then, by and large, the poor drivers are proficient enough for how they need to apply their skills.

Which is why I dislike the terminology of adequacy. What is adequate depends on what skills are needed.

Now there is certainly room for debate as to what skills are necessary for a diver at any level to be adequate. But I would hope we could agree that there's a fair gap between what an OW diver interested on doing a few dives on vacation needs and what someone doing full wreck penetration dives at 80 meters needs.

So when someone tries to say that starting tech courses a rec diver realizes that their prior training was 'inadequate' is using a standard that is improperly applied. What is adequate, that is what is about average and sufficient for the task, for an OW diver should be inadequate for tech diving in every way.

So I don't disagree with your point. I teach kung fu, and one thing I keep telling my students is that once they get their first or second black belt, they'll be ready to start learning kung fu. What comes before that point is little more than sufficient ground work for learning the real heart of the art. And I take your meaning to be that once someone starts tech diving, they start seeing how much there is for them to learn, and how much better the skills they have learned could be.

But that's does not say those skills were not adequate for the task for which they were intended to be applied.. That's about application. And to use that term is to denigrate OW training using standards that our outside of the scope of the task. It's unnecessarily inflammatory.

 

[Cave Diver]

Certainly, but even then, by and large, the poor drivers are proficient enough for how they need to apply their skills.

Which is why I dislike the terminology of adequacy. What is adequate depends on what skills are needed.

Now there is certainly room for debate as to what skills are necessary for a diver at any level to be adequate. But I would hope we could agree that there's a fair gap between what an OW diver interested on doing a few dives on vacation needs and what someone doing full wreck penetration dives at 80 meters needs.

So when someone tries to say that starting tech courses a rec diver realizes that their prior training was 'inadequate' is using a standard that is improperly applied. What is adequate, that is what is about average and sufficient for the task, for an OW diver should be inadequate for tech diving in every way.

So I don't disagree with your point. I teach kung fu, and one thing I keep telling my students is that once they get their first or second black belt, they'll be ready to start learning kung fu. What comes before that point is little more than sufficient ground work for learning the real heart of the art. And I take your meaning to be that once someone starts tech diving, they start seeing how much there is for them to learn, and how much better the skills they have learned could be.

But that's does not say those skills were not adequate for the task for which they were intended to be applied.. That's about application. And to use that term is to denigrate OW training using standards that our outside of the scope of the task. It's unnecessarily inflammatory.

Before we get off into a long off topic debate on this topic, I'm going to ask you to go back and re-read my original statement that you took issue with:

Exactly! Realistically I could have thrown Tech into the advanced/experienced category as well. The reason I split this into a separate category is because that seems to be the point when a lot of people seem to realize their OW skills might have been a bit more lacking than they thought.

Nowhere in this statement did I say there were inadequate. Nowhere did I say they lacked proficiency for an environment they were currently diving.

I said "a bit more lacking than they thought." This means that many OW divers (myself included) think they have buoyancy, trim, etc. down to a science and when confronted with a higher standard, they find they are not as good as they thought they were. Nothing more, nothing less.