The Philosophy of Diver Training

[DCBC]

DC continues to be hung up on PADI's requirement that it, not the local instructor, knows what is the right way to teach OW instruction.

Thanks for coming back to the thread Peter. I suppose when I look at PADI's preliminary in-water requirements, I have to question whether PADI really does know the "right way to teach OW instruction." Certainly this may be the case for warm water vacation land diving, but I believe any instructor would show extremely poor judgment to put a poor (or non-swimmer) in the water in my local area, which in notorious for its extreme cold water, current and the largest tides in the world.

I surmise that this is why all other training agencies (of which I'm aware) allow their instructors to teach beyond the minimum standards set by their agencies. As I mentioned in a previous post, NAUI's swimming requirement of 10 swim cycles can be upgraded by the instructor to whatever that instructor feel is reasonable for the local conditions, say 400 yards and require this for certification. As I understand it, PADI holds to the same requirements regardless of the local conditions in-which the diver will frequent.

And he has a point -- but he seems to miss any and all caveats because of the PADI restriction on withholding an OW card if the student masters all of the PADI requirements even IF the local instructor believes they are not sufficient for the local conditions.

Absolutely. Actually I don't know how any training could responsibly be completed for such a person outside of the pool in local waters.

His two prime historical complaints seem to be that he couldn't teach altitude tables during OW. Well, the OW card says you may dive under the same conditions as you were taught and he wasn't teaching at altitude (or so I understand -- just that some local diving was at altitude) so.... He says he couldn't teach diver rescue -- but it is unclear to me (although I have not read every word DCBC has written, life is too short) that he was prevented from demonstrating techniques or just prevented from mandating the skills be done prior to the OW cert.

Actually, the course was taught in the mountains of British Columbia. I received a call from PADI HQ saying that I could not test students on altitude diving and make this a criteria for certification, as it was outside of PADI standards. My inclusion of an u/w rescue/recovery was also outside of the standards.

In all fairness, I was an instructor with several other agencies at the time. PADI was the only organization that didn't allow such inclusions into their program. I was unaware of this, as there was nothing in the instructor manual that would have indicated that nothing could be added to the program, as long as minimum standards were met. I understand from your previous post that you too may have had some difficulty discerning "the gray area" yourself.

In either case, there was nothing to prevent him from creating an OW/AOW/Rescue combination class which would have let him do everything he wanted. It would have given his students all the time he needed to teach them everything he knows is required for the basic OW student and the only additional charge he would have had to make is the $ for the two additional cards. Perhaps the real problem is that DC didn't have the imagination necessary to create the type of class he knows is right -- or perhaps, just perhaps, his students weren't ready to pay the $ and time necessary.

Imagination didn't have anything to do with it. The year was 1990/91 and before a diver could be certified as an advanced diver, he had to be certified with a number of dives under his belt (if memory serves me correctly, I believe it was 10). So combining courses as you have suggested wasn't an option.

 

[DCBC]

Can the rules change? We are certain that they will, and so what was true about PADI SEVENTEEN YEARS AGO, is probably not true now. Not that this will stop you from constantly pointing out how your honor was impugned another billion times. Fortunately, PADI is showing their integrity and NOT giving us their side of this sordid event. That would be interesting to read, but they are consummate professionals when it comes to this sort of thing. Ergo, we only have your version and some of us believe that to be a tad biased. Maybe even more than a tad. Can we give it a rest?

You can if you like; I think you've revealed yourself sufficiently.

 

[Guy Alcala]

Have to disagree s little. Enriched air is dangerous in the hands of a divrr that doesn't fully understand it. I had a freind of mine decide to use 32% on a 155' dive. O2 tox did him in. He was an OW diver with less than 20 dives, and borrowed tanks from a friend. So, until the full nitrox course is built into all agency's OW s&p, let's keep teaching the darn class. <snip>

I did specify "well-trained". Anyone who can read can learn what the MOD limits are, how to calculate them and what the risks are. The only question is whether the diver has adequate buoyancy control to stay above them, and is conscientious enough to monitor their depth so they can do so. The only 'hands-on' training required is learning how to calibrate and use an analyzer; everything else is book learning.

Guy

 

[Guy Alcala]

I don't think Guy Alcala was saying people should use Nitrox without training. I think he said that Nitrox is easy enough to learn that you can do it from an on line class (which I think is true). I DO see the need for some kind of verification that one has taken and passed such a class, though, precisely to prevent the kind of story you told.

Lynne, I disagree on your second point. To me, the need for verification is only there to cover the filler's liability in our out-of-control tort system; the diver has/should have the responsibility for learning enough to dive safely. The information is available; it should be up to the user to acquire it.

Assuming we could reform liability laws so that each of us took responsibility for our own actions (provided we didn't put anyone else at risk who wasn't a voluntary paritcipant with us), then there is no need for any kind of verification. Of course, that's only going to happen Through the Looking Glass, so I won't be holding my breath

Guy

 

[Kingpatzer]

Imagination didn't have anything to do with it. The year was 1990/91 and before a diver could be certified as an advanced diver, he had to be certified with a number of dives under his belt (if memory serves me correctly, I believe it was 10). So combining courses as you have suggested wasn't an option.

In 1990 PADI didn't allow instructors to schedule dives with OW students after OW requirements were met? Getting 10 dives, or 20, or however many is just a matter of getting into the water the last I checked.

 

[Thalassamania]

I agree that he went way too deep got his training, bug his lack of knowledge about nitrox and the problems with high pp of o2 did kill him. He died with 1800 psi of gas still in his tank. I use his example in my OW classes to ensure my students can make logical decisions.

Nitrox was only one of his many problems, and while OxTox may have been the COD, it was only the proximate cause, not the ultimate cause.

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

Trolling again? I though you knew better.

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

Actually it is, if you take the entire course that I teach there is at least one thing in it (and let's remember, these are not wild ass of my own, but tried and true exercise that have been used for over half a century without incident) that is expressly prohibited by every recreational agency out there.

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.

While nobody wants to train "bad" divers, and nobody wants to be a "bad" diver, or to consider themselves a "substandard diver," the reality is that there are lots (most?) of instructors out there whose view on what make a bad diver is not, shall we say, at the same level as those that I hold and those that are held by my colleagues. What we see as being required to produce a safe and comfortable diver is much more extensive and when the discussion gets to the end the answer is that teaching to the level we do would kill the diving industry because not enough people would want to do it. So let's stop calling a spade an entrenching tool and say that while not one wants to be a "bad" anything, there is a fair consensus amongst recreational instructors that few are willing to pay to be anything more than they currently are trained to be.

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)

I don't think the conflict here is between the instructor who want to add to the course and the student who doesn't want additional requirements, it is between the instructor who wants to add and the conjoined attitudes of the LDS and PADI.

This statement is rarely true. A great instructor will teach a great class regardless of his agency. Great instructors are extremely rare. Instructors I've observed over the years usually teach their agency's standards to the letter. Each agency writes its own standards and they vary a great deal. In most cases, the biggest difference between one class and another is the agency.

And shop affiliated instructors who try to do better than agency standards dictate are often shot down by their LDS.

I disagree but then I spent the last 15 years diving the Jersey shore and I have seen a diver using a vice grip for a valve handle so as not to miss a Doria dive, no names or boats mentioned. And even a NAUI OW instructor with no technical experience doing a bounce dive just to see the Doria.

That would be Peter Gimbel? He had no technical diving training or experience.

We are not the smartest of breeds but we do have a strong instinct for survival, my issue is that until something really bad happens many divers feel that they are perfectly capable of diving in situations beyond their limitations, better engineered equipment and rigid dive profiles determined by boat operators have kept many a recreational diver from being placed in a situation that they could not handle. Unfortunately when they do come across a situation they are just **** out of luck and that is my issue.

Kinda the way that pads and helmets created new and often worse football injuries.

That hasn't been my experience in Florida. The instructor is the critical factor. In fact, I think that Walter has a piece on how to choose a good instructor... I wonder why he didn't say agency instead?

Sure the instructor can make a difference, and likely often does ... but only within the confines of the standards that work under. When standards set a minimum and the instructors has the trust of the agency to design a effective course, that's great, but when an agency does have that sort of trust in its instructors and dictates a bottom, and a top, and the order that skills must be done then, then for the students of a lousy instructor that's a good thing, but for the students of a good instructor its a bad thing.

...
All kidding aside, why waste time and resources on teaching things not needed to dive in my environment.

Because the card does not say, NetDoc's backyard in it.

Can the rules change? We are certain that they will, and so what was true about PADI SEVENTEEN YEARS AGO, is probably not true now...

No, its gotten worse and worse.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

While nobody wants to train "bad" divers, and nobody wants to be a "bad" diver, or to consider themselves a "substandard diver," the reality is that there are lots (most?) of instructors out there whose view on what make a bad diver is not, shall we say, at the same level as those that I hold and those that are held by my colleagues. What we see as being required to produce a safe and comfortable diver is much more extensive and when the discussion gets to the end the answer is that teaching to the level we do would kill the diving industry because not enough people would want to do it. So let's stop calling a spade an entrenching tool and say that while not one wants to be a "bad" anything, there is a fair consensus amongst recreational instructors that few are willing to pay to be anything more than they currently are trained to be.

There are good and valid reasons why most instructors do not hold the same views as you and your colleagues ... you are training a different set of divers for a different purpose.

We're not training people to be science divers ... they're not going to be diving for a profession. We're training people who want to enjoy a part-time recreational activity. Whatever you believe, it doesn't take a 100-hour class to do that in a manner that gets them into and out of the water safely and comfortably.

Different audiences, different goals ... hence different subjective views on the meaning of terms such as "bad", "adequate", "safe", and "mastery".

I don't doubt that your class turns out superbly skilled divers ... but I just don't think it's necessary for every recreational diver to learn to dive at that level.

That doesn't mean it couldn't be done better than it is ... but I'd prefer to reach for improvements that are, for practical purposes, attainable.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Thalassamania]

There are good and valid reasons why most instructors do not hold the same views as you and your colleagues ... you are training a different set of divers for a different purpose.

We're not training people to be science divers ... they're not going to be diving for a profession. We're training people who want to enjoy a part-time recreational activity. Whatever you believe, it doesn't take a 100-hour class to do that in a manner that gets them into and out of the water safely and comfortably.

Different audiences, different goals ... hence different subjective views on the meaning of terms such as "bad", "adequate", "safe", and "mastery".

I don't doubt that your class turns out superbly skilled divers ... but I just don't think it's necessary for every recreational diver to learn to dive at that level.

That doesn't mean it couldn't be done better than it is ... but I'd prefer to reach for improvements that are, for practical purposes, attainable.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Science divers do not dive as a profession, they do science as a profession and dive in support of that science, which means, on average, about 50 dives a year. One of the points is that the way in which we train science divers today is almost identical to the way in which recreational divers were trained in the late 1950s and early 1960s (before the "agencies were on the scene to screw it up). I do honestly believe that it does take 100 hours to train a diver if you want anything significant more than, "get into and out of the water safely and comfortably."

You are right about the subjectivity of the terms, that is a large part of the problem, there is no common language. In the bad old days, when NASDS renamed all the gear so that there was a buoyancy system and a ballast system, and an air deliver system, one wag wrote a piece about diving Moonies who spoke a different language and could not communicate with other divers. While not exact, that piece was prophetic.

 

[DCBC]

In 1990 PADI didn't allow instructors to schedule dives with OW students after OW requirements were met? Getting 10 dives, or 20, or however many is just a matter of getting into the water the last I checked.

To be clear, I responded to the point that if I had any "imagination," I could have ran an OW, Advanced, Rescue Program as one course. This was prohibited by PADI at the time. I would have had to certify the divers (OW), they would have had to log the requisite number of dives before they were eligible to enroll in an advanced program.

As I was prohibited from teaching altitude tables and rescue, in my opinion these divers would NOT be adequately trained to dive in the local area. They were subsequently issued NAUI certification and I left PADI as a result.

 

[DCBC]

There are good and valid reasons why most instructors do not hold the same views as you and your colleagues ... you are training a different set of divers for a different purpose.

We're not training people to be science divers ... they're not going to be diving for a profession. We're training people who want to enjoy a part-time recreational activity. Whatever you believe, it doesn't take a 100-hour class to do that in a manner that gets them into and out of the water safely and comfortably.

Different audiences, different goals ... hence different subjective views on the meaning of terms such as "bad", "adequate", "safe", and "mastery".

I don't doubt that your class turns out superbly skilled divers ... but I just don't think it's necessary for every recreational diver to learn to dive at that level.

That doesn't mean it couldn't be done better than it is ... but I'd prefer to reach for improvements that are, for practical purposes, attainable.

Although I have trained Navy and Commercial Divers who are not by definition recreation divers, I've also taught many recreational divers over the years. The criteria for certification is different in each of these roles, as could be logically expected.

What knowledge and skill-sets that are required for a diver to dive safely is somewhat dependent on the environment in-which the activity is to be undertaken. As it would appear that both Thal and I have had some input into the training standards of some of the recreational agencies (including NAUI & ACUC) I think it fair that we can comment on the content of the Standards of these particular agencies.

When establishing standards, the agencies have a choice. They can look at developing what is necessary for a diver to dive safely (for any particular certification level) and take:

a) The position that the Standard is universal and not subject to change by any instructor;

It is the Agency that sets the only Standards to which a student is to be evaluated for certification (Agency Standards = Certification Standards). As this is a universal standard, the requisite training would have to ensure diver safety anywhere on the planet. The instructor may not modify or add to this certification. Any such addition would void the instructor's liability insurance.

Or

b) The Agency Standard is considered a "minimum standard" for certification and the instructor is encouraged to surpass this making the instructor's standards a part of what is required for certification (minimum standards + instructor standards = certification standards).

Although not universal, this accommodates the different conditions that are found in different diving conditions. It allows a diver wanting to dive in warm clear calm water to not require skill-sets that he would need to dive in cold water with poor visibility, current and tidal flow as considerations. To do this the Agency requires its instructors to accept the liability for what is reasonably taught. The same instructors are covered with liability insurance to do so.

Most diving Agencies have elected Option B. PADI seems to have elected Option A, with an exception. They have opted to prepare the diver for the best diving conditions instead of the worst, in my opinion.

This of course is their prerogative. I do however have difficulty accepting the fact that they prohibit their instructors from raising the bar, so divers who frequently dive in more challenging conditions may be adequately prepared. I see this as an enforced low standard.

This is not to say that the other Agencies are perfect. An instructor may elect to teach to the minimums, which may not be sufficient to ensure diver safety in all conditions. In this scenario, although the Agency is not tying the instructor's hands and encourages the instructor to surpass the minimums to teach whatever is required, in some situations the affect is an inadequately prepared diver.

There are things in the content of every Agency than an instructor may disagree with. The focus of this OP however is Agency Training Philosophies.