The Philosophy of Diver Training

[TechBlue]

It isn't just PADI ... NAUI has exactly the same standard ... 20 dives to start DM and 60 dives before you complete it.

I've only ever met two people who I would consider to have demonstration-quality diving skills with that many dives, and neither one of them had yet developed enough insight through experience to have been trusted with students or newly-certified OW divers. Fortunately, they both knew it.

There's a thread in here somewhere about a local (to me) instructor who was so inept she couldn't even put her own fins on without assistance. Even her OW students were wary of her. She's a classic example of someone who became an instructor by going from class-to-class-to-class without ever doing any real-world diving, and got her instructor certification as soon as she met the minimum requirements.

But, as I mentioned above ... this isn't just a PADI issue. My own agency uses the same low bar ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

It has been a while but I thought that NAUI did have higher standards, it's shame when competition drives standards down rather than than the opposite.

 

[The Chairman]

It's not the agency: it's the instructor.

 

[DCBC]

It has been a while but I thought that NAUI did have higher standards, it's shame when competition drives standards down rather than than the opposite.

For many agencies, it almost doesn't matter what the "minimum standards" are, as many instructors surpass the minimum requirements. For example, if NAUI requires a swim of 10 stroke cycles and the instructor requires the student to swim 400 yards (the standard the student has to meet before the instructor will certify the student) this insures that the student is competent to be in the water.

A problem may occur when the certification agency doesn't allow the instructor to do this (where you have "an enforced low standard"), or when the instructor teaches to the minimum. This may not be a problem to the vacation land diver, but at other times it may be insufficient.

 

[TechBlue]

It's not the agency: it's the instructor.

If only that was the case it would be a lot easier to fix. I believe that we have already established that if a student can perform the skills they must be allowed the certification. I haven't seen a requirement that they actually need to comprehend what is entailed in the skills and that they must be able to perform the skills consistently, they only have to meet minimum requirements.

If as you say it is the instructor, then how can they receive an instructors certification if they do not know how to teach new divers adequately? Bob has made reference to an instructor who couldn't even put her fins on without assistance, she met the minimum requirements to become an instructor and she is out there teaching.

Regardless of the agency if the standards are that lax that you can slap your money on the table and go from OW to Instructor in 6 weeks there is an inherent problem with
those agencies, of course if you believe that diving is so easy I guess 6 weeks is more than enough.

 

[TechBlue]

For many agencies, it almost doesn't matter what the "minimum standards" are, as many instructors surpass the minimum requirements. For example, if NAUI requires a swim of 10 stroke cycles and the instructor requires the student to swim 400 yards (the standard the student has to meet before the instructor will certify the student) this insures that the student is competent to be in the water.

A problem may occur when the certification agency doesn't allow the instructor to do this (where you have "an enforced low standard"), or when the instructor teaches to the minimum. This may not be a problem to the vacation land diver, but at other times it may be insufficient.

I disagree with the entire concept of minimum standards if they are allowed to be so low as to make it virtually impossible for a diver not to meet them and receive a certification. If the agency allows instructors to interpret their own level according to local conditions it is all well and good but the actual certification doesn't state local conditions and again this leaves the level open to debate and the professionalism of the instructor.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

PADI isn't the only agency with low standards. Assuming that the instructor "follows the rules," the biggest difference lies in what the instructor is allowed to do to train the diver. An instructor from one agency can add content as appropriate and require the student to perform to a higher standard; the other instructor is prohibited from doing so. In this way, the student is not held to the minimums and may be required to attain a high degree of diving proficiency before they are certified. Many choose to avoid talking about the differences, but they are indeed there.

For a good instructor ... regardless of agency ... what the agency requires isn't as limiting as some would want you to believe.

NOBODY wants to train bad divers. And I have yet to meet a student who wants to consider themself a substandard diver. So present the material in a way that makes your students understand WHY it's important and nobody's gonna be concerned about what's "required" and what's "optional" ... it all boils down to what's "needed" to be safe and comfortable.

And AFAIK, PADI doesn't say you can't test them on additional material ... they say you can't withold certification if they don't pass the test. That's a big difference ... and one that becomes irrelevent if the students truly understand why you're adding the material in the first place.

I've yet to meet a student who's priority is getting out of class with as little as they can get away with ... most students consider optional material a real value. The important thing is that it makes sense to your student why you're teaching it.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[DCBC]

I disagree with the entire concept of minimum standards if they are allowed to be so low as to make it virtually impossible for a diver not to meet them and receive a certification. If the agency allows instructors to interpret their own level according to local conditions it is all well and good but the actual certification doesn't state local conditions and again this leaves the level open to debate and the professionalism of the instructor.

It was the case with NAUI, PADI, IDEA & is the case with ACUC and CMAS that the criteria for certification is to prepare the student to dive in conditions similar or better than those where the training is being conducted. If the student does not possess the skills to dive in the local conditions, I cannot certify that student.

When discussing this from a PADI perspective earlier in this thread, Kingpatzer suggested that if the student met the standards, but who didn't have the required in-water ability for local conditions, s/he could be given a referral to have his certification completed in Florida or other suitable location where the water conditions suited the capability of the student.

As far as professionalism is concerned, I would be more concerned if an instructor put the life of a student at risk, because the Standards stated the student met the minimum requirements. I think if you checked with most agencies, they would say that there is nothing written in the standards that overrides the instructor from using common sense and doing what's best to ensure the student's safety.

 

[DCBC]

PADI doesn't say you can't test them on additional material ... they say you can't withhold certification if they don't pass the test. That's a big difference

That's certainly wasn't the case with me; PADI told me I could NOT add to the standard. I could not test on anything that wasn't in the standard.

From reading this thread pretty carefully, it has been confirmed that a PADI instructor cannot add anything to the training program. There was a bit of a discussion on how much elaboration the instructor could get away with, but adding something not in the standards, testing on the material and requiring it for certification, no.

Bob if you have something stating otherwise, please post it.

 

[TechBlue]

It was the case with NAUI, PADI, IDEA & is the case with ACUC and CMAS that the criteria for certification is to prepare the student to dive in conditions similar or better than those where the training is being conducted. If the student does not possess the skills to dive in the local conditions, I cannot certify that student.

When discussing this from a PADI perspective earlier in this thread, Kingpatzer suggested that if the student met the standards, but who didn't have the required in-water ability for local conditions, s/he could be given a referral to have his certification completed in Florida or other suitable location where the water conditions suited the capability of the student.

As far as professionalism is concerned, I would be more concerned if an instructor put the life of a student at risk, because the Standards stated the student met the minimum requirements. I think if you checked with most agencies, they would say that there is nothing written in the standards that overrides the instructor from using common sense and doing what's best to ensure the student's safety.

Common sense is a large denominator and this applies to both the instructor and the student. If a student chooses to take confined water and academics at home and fly out to a nice warm tropical resort to do their OW it is their choice, while they are there if they are so inclined they could also get their AOW quite easily. Now you have a diver to all intents and purposes meets the requirements for most dive ops and boats to go diving regardless of the conditions. The instructor has no control whatsoever on this and the student in their own mind may believe that they have taken all the training required despite the fact that all agencies tell students not to dive beyond their own personal limitations and to become familiar with local dive conditions before diving.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

That's certainly wasn't the case with me; PADI told me I could NOT add to the standard. I could not test on anything that wasn't in the standard.

From reading this thread pretty carefully, it has been confirmed that a PADI instructor cannot add anything to the training program. There was a bit of a discussion on how much elaboration the instructor could get away with, but adding something not in the standards, testing on the material and requiring it for certification, no.

Bob if you have something stating otherwise, please post it.

All I have is my experience from my DM days working with a couple of PADI instructors ... one of whom I mentioned earlier. Both of those fellows taught a pretty thorough class, and included things I have seen posted here and elsewhere as not in the standards. Both turned out what I could call competent divers for PNW conditions. Neither seemed to have any issues with PADI standards, nor with testing their students to a level that I would consider adequate for the conditions in which they were teaching.

But both of those guys were very experienced instructors, and focused on the needs of their students rather than the minimum requirements. It is this focus that, I believe, made the difference between what they taught and what I keep seeing discussed here in ScubaBoard and elsewhere with respect to the limitations of the PADI curriculum.

I also know from talking to Peter Guy ... who is a PADI instructor ... that he has been able to include things not in the standards. Yes, he did have some issues teaching those things, but my understanding from discussing it with him personally was that it was less a PADI issue than it was an issue with the staff at the LDS.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)