Concerns About Length of Open Water Course

[TSandM]

To my knowledge, the only agency that publishes detailed, objective criteria for evaluation of skills in recreational diving classes is GUE. If you can't hold buoyancy within 5', or trim within 30 degrees, you have not reached the bar.

None of the main agencies, to my knowledge, write out criteria for a passing performance of a skill that are like that. I'm sure that, in instructor training, they see some examples of good and bad performance . . . but in the end, it's up to the instructor to decide what a passing performance is. And assume you have a student who has sat on the bottom of the pool and neatly performed a mask flood and clear, and has done the same, on her knees, in an OW dive. She has successfully cleared her mask twice, which is repeatably, and she has done it comfortably, and sitting on the bottom, which may be your definition of "in the manner of an open water diver". You pretty much have to pass her, even though, if she had to do this a third time while actually DIVING, everything might well come apart. This isn't just true in Australia, and it isn't just true with PADI. It's true all over.

We are very lucky to teach for a shop that allows us enough pool time to make sure every student has performed the major skills, like mask skills and air-sharing and regulator recovery, at least a dozen or more times before even going to OW. They do only get their four OW dives (or five, if they do the dry suit option), which is definitely marginal for producing an independent Puget Sound diver. But the vast majority of our students do well enough that we don't worry that they are going to hurt themselves while diving after class. (After all, I'm the poster child for how badly you would have to do to hurt yourself, so long as you don't panic -- I think I did almost everything you can do wrong.) I don't think I could possibly feel that way if we tried to get the whole class done in two days. Two weekends, as one of our local shops does it, would be a rock bottom minimum, and very stressful for me.

 

[gcarter]

Shouldn't an organisation embrace feedback, I like PADI, if possible I would like to contribute to the advancement of their instructional system. ?

Sure they should. And kudos for trying. But you are not happy with the result, and the next move is up to you.

I think the way you are approaching this situation is destructive, why cannot one make an observation, bring it to light, and integrate it into development?

You are free to think that. It has been my observation that there is a tremendous amount of criticism of PADI, yet people remain with them in spite of the fact that their criticisms have not been resolved. You have made your observation and believe the response unsatisfactory. Again, your move.

If more people stood by the strength of their convictions and actually left PADI, they might start to pay attention. (And if they don't, do you really want to stay with them anyway?) That people stay creates no incentive for change. That they stay is a tacit acceptance of the status quo regardless of the words spoken and renders those words, IMO, empty rhetoric. IF you find that harsh, so be it. It is my frank opinion.

I personally would not continue to represent or work for someone whose policies I could not support.

I feel I should note for clarity I am not PADI bashing. I am pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in criticizing an organization (whatever it is) whose vision and standards you do not share while continuing to represent them and make your living by them.

 

[iluvtheocean]

what i can see from the situation - the issue is with the shops and their "mill attitude" -- only solutions i see while continuing to teach as a PADI instructor are: a) find a shop that will do what you want b) go independent c) suck it up and do what the shops want d) stop teaching.

 

[drbill]

OW courses here used to be much more detailed and lengthy (mine was 3 weeks of regular meetings, pool sessions and open water sessions back in the 60s and it covered "everything in today's OW-AOW-Rescue sequence). Join the crowd who think the current OW courses are minimal at best.

 

[lionfish-eater]

Insert sarcasm emoticon here:

Get with the program old man. Minimal is best.

Best for attracting the short attention span general vacationing public.

Best for profits.

Best for selling more training.

Best for instructional videos.

Best for whom?

 

[DevonDiver]

Why cant their be a special standard that states, diving in cold water, with significant currents and poor vis the min amount time that must be taken in conducting an OW is 4 days.

I think, for three reasons:

1) Timescale is largely irrelevant, compared to 'mastery' of performance standards and overall student diver comfort and confidence.

2) Timescale is also irrelevant, as the basic minimum requirements of the course (5x theory/5x confined/4x ow dives) remains the same. Assuming that the problem is that instructors/operators are teaching the bare minimum, rather than what the student needs to attain the course goals.

3) Increasing timescale impacts on the volume of certifications achieved. PADI have always seem to target volume of sales as their KPI for success.

Just like we have to reduce student ratios depending on conditions?

Do we "have" to do that? I thought this was a suggestion (safe diving - control of class - liability) rather than a 'standard' per say.

 

[Nwcid]

You have to bear in mind that the tuition provided is balanced against prudent advice to dive conservatively and within your comfort level.

That should mean 'taking it easy' whilst you go through the post-certification process of ingraining the skills you learnt and expanding your comfort zone.

There tends to be a mentality of "I am now qualified to 18m/60ft", so I will dive to 18m/60ft..." etc etc. That isn't how it is 'supposed' to work.

People sometimes confuse a 'maximum recommended depth' with having some sort of 'license' to dive to that depth without due regard for their comfort and skill development.

The dives you might conduct supervised by an instructor in training do not necessarily equate to what you might attempt without that professional supervision. Throttle back until the comfort zone expands to meet your goals. Patience is the key.

In that respect, too much emphasis can be placed on what a course 'certifies' you to do, at the expense of prudent advice to dive conservatively, well within your training level and advance your dive experience slowly and progressively.



Learning to dive is about learning and application. A good course should give you ample opportunity to put your skills into practice, and develop in-water comfort, through actual diving.

I agree that some instructors neglect this aspect. My personal opinion is that this stems from over-emphasis on individual skill performance requirements and too little focus on the 'overall outcome' of creating a comfortable, skilled diver. It's quite intangible... and I can see how it'd be hard to write that outcome as a global standard.

However, the instructor is always responsible for training safe, confident divers. If they aren't, then they shouldn't be qualified t that time. End of story...



If you mean that you felt you needed supplemental training in the OW course skills, in order to achieve what you felt was 'mastery' of them - then you should contact PADI and complain. The OW course contains the foundational skills for safe, unsupervised, scuba diving within limited parameters. It should achieve it's goals. Supplemental, remedial, training after qualification should not be necessary...

Did you say anything at the time of your certification? Did you let the instructor know that you weren't happy with your skill/comfort level upon graduation?

All great points and I do wish it was as easy as you say. The problem is one that seems quite common in life, you don't know what you don't know. At the time I thought I had learned what the course was meant to teach. Now the further out I get from that it has become more clear. As I have learned more by reading places like this and talking to other divers and part of that has made me realize what was missed, especially when you posted the "goal" of the class. Pretty hard to go back 2 years and complain. My post was not to complain, but to share my experience.

As I said we learned the skills. I felt as comfortable in the water at the level of training we had. I felt comfortable practicing the skills we learned. I am not sure how anyone can "master" all those skills in just a couple of dives. I have been a paramedic for over a decade and while I am extremely good at my job, I don't know I would call myself a "master" there either. . As I stated I felt like the skill set went well. I teach EMT classes and during class we do skills over and over and over (confined water). The students even get ride time (open water) where they can work with real patients. At the end of class, if they pass, they are certified EMT's and in theory could go out and work independently. The difference between that and OW is that after EMT class they go though a Field portion where they do work independently but they are still working around someone experienced (like dives with DM's). I know the 2 situations are not quite the same but it is the easiest way to compare it for me.

Now that I know better as we do more classes I have been doing much more research about what the goal is, who is teaching it, what I should expect to get out of it, how will it benefit my diving. One example is AOW, had I taken that class with only the provided information (book/video) I would have been outraged. The instructor that we went though also has a supplemental book and a set course, not pick "5" system. Like many things because of the instructor I got my moneys worth and then some.

 

[tracydr]

OP, I'm still trying to figure out why you "love" your LDS? If this shop is pressuring you to teach in two days, why do you say that you "love" them in your letter to PADI? I would have a hard time "loving" an employer that treated me like this.

 

[The Chairman]

Shorter than optimal courses are an industry problem, not an agency one. We, the Scuba Industry, are our own worst enemy. We think that the only way to entice customers is to offer cheap and quick certifications. We underprice ourselves trying to get as big of piece of the diminishing pie as we can rather than trying to grow the pie. Then, after the die is cast, we realize that we can't teach a class for that price and we have to start cutting corners. Since time is money, that's the first thing to be cut. No, it's not about greed: it's about sheer desperation.

As an instructor, I don't like this predicament one bit. It's not PADI's fault. It's not SSI's, SDI's, NAUI's, SEI's or even NASE's fault. It's our collective fault. It's why I teach the way I teach: as an independent. My normal class only takes three days if my students can achieve control but I have had them take more than ten. It's up to the student and me as to how fast they can progress. One thing's for sure: once we hit open water, they are confident because they are competent. They are in control of their diving, not me. I'm only along to watch them show off their skills.

 

[agilis]

What a load of pusillanimous crap. Two days, maybe 4 to 5 hours each day, is adequate for a basic course introduction, introduction to theory, to the equipment, skills assessment, some basic rules. Nothing more. Certification in two days is criminal negligence. It does help to sell equipment, though, and plumps up the bottom line. And it's about time to drop that ridiculous 'buddy' element from the catechism. The blind leading the blind.