Pervasive "Going Pro" Theme in New Divers

[mathauck0814]

Touché


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?ckgok5

 

[victorzamora]

Sounds like Bob has a crush on Quero!!

Jokes aside, I just asked my room mate who finished his cert dives in November 2011 and has under a dozen dives under his belt what his opinion was. He said he wanted to become a DM (both he and I are looking in to it). He said he wanted to get his DM cert so he could do some tec certs down the road. I corrected him by saying it's not necessary to be a DM to get tec certs. He then said he would just do AOW/Deep/EAN and then go through tec40.

This thread has made me seriously reconsider my intentions on getting my DM cert. I know I want rescue so I can have some training as far as helping people if anything bad happens. My fiancee is diving. My kids will dive as soon (as I have them ) as they have the strength to carry an AL80 on their backs. But going pro? I dunno. I am a newb at a lot of aspects of scuba....so I'm going to ask. What can a DM do that an AOW student can't?

 

[Bob DBF]

What can a DM do that an AOW student can't?

Work as a dive proffessional for an agency.

A DM cert is fine if you want to follow the path to instructor and so on, but if you have other intrests and goals in SCUBA it is not necessary. Figure out what type of diving you want to do and then read, train, and dive.



Bob
--------------------------------------
I may be old, but I’m not dead yet.

 

[Quero]

What can a DM do that an AOW can't?

A DM rating is a professional credential, so a DM can work in the industry. If you don't have an interest in working with divers, then the rating is pretty much only good for bragging rights. You can get the same level of knowledge without actually taking the tests for DM. And you can achieve the same level of diving competence through other sorts of mentorship (DM training entails becoming a mentee to your instructor).

 

[Lorenzoid]

I don't want to be an instructor particularly, but PADI has 2 educational ladders after Rescue Diver. One of the paths has one item on it, and the other has 3. Since I want to continue to learn, the longer path looks more interesting.

Exactly. I'm sure PADI's original goal with the two-path system was to provide an alternative route for those who don't want to become DMs and instructors, but the system is flawed because the Master Scuba Diver path appears to be less challenging. Rack up a few specialties, and you're there. I suppose the difficulty in equalizing the two paths is that if PADI makes the non-pro path more intellectually and physically challenging, it would seemingly become more like the pro path. My suggestion for the non-pro path would be to require deeper technical knowledge than the pro path, so that each path has its own challenges that are different from the other path's but equally challenging in their own way.

And yes there are other agencies, but as we know, once a person gets indoctrinated by their OW agency, they are more likely to stick with that agency's offerings. Not every diver is even aware of all the various courses that are available from various agencies. I myself have only become aware of them by reading SB. Not every diver reads SB or something similar. So the PADI OW diver is likely to remain under the impression that the PADI pro path is their best option for continuing education.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

All PADI would have to do to make the two ladders more equitable, skills-wise, is follow the same path other agencies did ... turn the Master Diver program into a real class with a curriculum that demands in-depth knowledge and a high level of skill proficiency.

That, however, is not their business model. Therefore, those who wish to pursue this approach should look at different agencies ... keeping in mind that at the non-professional level it doesn't matter whose acronym is on your cert card. Other agencies offer the class you want ... why wouldn't you choose to take it?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Peter Guy]

The notion that there are only two paths within PADI after Rescue may not be totally accurate (is not totally accurate). Assuming the stated two paths are DM/AI/Instructor and Specialties/Master Scuba Diver, I'd like to add a third PADI path which just happens to be a skills oriented path.

The third path -- PADI's Tec 40 which has a 40 meter/130 foot depth limit (same as "recreational" diving). This path, perhaps along with the Self-Reliant Diver Specialty, could significantly enhance one's skills as a "recreational" diver. Tec 40 is really part of what I call the "techreational" diving of which every serious diver should be aware. I am not saying getting a Tec 40 card will make one a better diver, but if done properly, should provide a "recreational" diver with a much better skill set.

 

[boulderjohn]

The notion that there are only two paths within PADI after Rescue may not be totally accurate (is not totally accurate). Assuming the stated two paths are DM/AI/Instructor and Specialties/Master Scuba Diver, I'd like to add a third PADI path which just happens to be a skills oriented path.

The third path -- PADI's Tec 40 which has a 40 meter/130 foot depth limit (same as "recreational" diving). This path, perhaps along with the Self-Reliant Diver Specialty, could significantly enhance one's skills as a "recreational" diver. Tec 40 is really part of what I call the "techreational" diving of which every serious diver should be aware. I am not saying getting a Tec 40 card will make one a better diver, but if done properly, should provide a "recreational" diver with a much better skill set.

This is speculation, but I think we will see a clear change in the old "two-path" model in the future. A couple of years ago PADI had no tech training of its own--it had all its tech in an affiliated program called DSAT, and there was not a hint of its existence in recreational training. Now that that the tech training program has moved into PADI's brand, I think we will see a third path emerge and be readily apparent to recreational divers. I also agree with Peter that " if done properly, [it] should provide a "recreational" diver with a much better skill set."

 

[Thalassamania]

I looked through Rubicon and read what I could find. I first of all learned that the early DAN reports are in fact the NUADC reports, and DAN took over their work some time ago. The NUADC-only reports are therefore relatively old. The newest NUADC document I could find was from 1995, and it was a comprehensive analysis of diving fatalities from 1970 to 1994.

An analysis of recreational, technical, and occupational populations and fatality rates in the United States. 1970 - 1994.​

McAniff, JJ (National Underwater Accident Data Center, Department of Physical Education, Health, and Recreation, College of Human Science and Services, University of Rhode Island, 1995)​

You may be interested in its conclusions (these are direct quotes--emphasis added):

The population estimates presented by NUAOC are reasonable and conservative and fall between those presented by other studies.

Fatality rates per 100,000 have decreased considerably, (8.65 in 1976, ••• 2.67 to 3.44 in 1993).

Student deaths are at an all-time low, (1.50 per 100,000 in 1993).

With literally millions of dives, working scuba instructors as a group have suffered only three fatalities (two were heart related) in the 24 year period of this study.

It can be said that recreational scuba diving is a relatively safe activity with fatality rates very near ordinary swimming.​

In summary, as far as I can see, the NUADC studies in which you participated indicated that diving in general was much safer in 1995 than in 1976, and that student deaths during instruction had dropped during that period of time to "an all time low."

...

I strongly disagreed with John McAniff concerning his population estimate, which when multiplied by an activity level estimate determined the denominator and the error bar. John, in fact, publicly admitted (in an Undercurrent interview) that his 3.5 million number was “purely my guesstimates and have been arrived at without any insider information, and may well be inaccurate.” In fact, Robert Monaghan, a NAUI and PADI instructor with doctoral training in statistical modeling, argued that the active diver population was actually closer to 700,000, making diving at least four to five time riskier than John had indicated.

 

[endurodog]

I strongly disagreed with John McAniff concerning his population estimate, which when multiplied by an activity level estimate determined the denominator and the error bar. John, in fact, publicly admitted (in an Undercurrent interview) that his 3.5 million number was “purely my guesstimates and have been arrived at without any insider information, and may well be inaccurate.” In fact, Robert Monaghan, a NAUI and PADI instructor with doctoral training in statistical modeling, argued that the active diver population was actually closer to 700,000, making diving at least four to five time riskier than John had indicated.

Thal with the study that Boulder John is quoting is talking about accident rates being at an all time low. So it's a comparision of 2 different times. So to put meaning to the numbers your quoting we need to know what numbers were back in the early years. If the author used the same way calculating diver numbers from the 2 different times then the end would still be an all time low in student diver deaths. Just with slightly different end numbers. Does McAniff give comparisions for those 2 times?