The Philosophy of Diver Training

[DCBC]

Now the agencies have set themselves up as gatekeepers (no C-Card, no fills), thereby taking much of the responsibility for their personal safety away from the diver. You may regard this as a good thing, as it certainly keeps many of the dumber members of the species from killing or injuring themselves. As you've probably guessed I'm not a fan of this, because it also takes away personal responsibility for risk management from every member of the species who isn't a dummy, and that, IMO, breeds dependency.

There are those that have cylinders filled to play paintball. As there is no law that I'm aware of (at least not in Canada) that puts an onus on the LDS to only sell air to certified divers.

I don't think that diver certification can also be construe as an adequate measure of competence, as some divers are certified for 30 years and never dive, but still retain the card. I'm seldom asked for a certification card when getting a fill. When I have been, a second piece of ID has never been required (not all C-Cards have photo ID). Do you really believe that the agencies have accepted the responsibility of being the gatekeepers?

 

[Walter]

We do a bailout, so we're batting 1000. Is a bailout prohibited in later courses?

Nope.

I had the others stuck in my memory Walter, and I was rushing out the door to visit my sick mother. Sorry my personal life got in the way. I'll tell her just to tough it out next time.

Had I been in your shoes, I would not have posted at all. Your mother has to come first. I wish I still had mine.

Location, location, location. It was the last post on that page and I missed it. Again, attack me and my integrity if you must. It doesn't have anything to do with the actual point I made that you DIDN'T comment on, but it's typical in this thread.

Pete, I didn't attack you or your integrity. As for location, yes, it can be easy to miss the last post on a page. That used to happen to me until I realized it was a problem. Now, I double check. It's not all that difficult.

Your actual point, which was asking Bob's opinion on my ability as an instructor based on incorrect information you were giving him. I don't know Bob's opinion on my ability as an instructor, but I did know the information you were supplying was way off base. Your post:

I know that Walter, the original Warm Water Wimp, refuses to dive in cold water. Does this make him any LESS of an instructor?

So which is incorrect: that you call yourself the "original Warm Water Wimp" or that you refuse to dive in cold water?

Both. I object to the term warm water wimp and especially to the practice of using my initials to designate the term. This has always been my position since the first time I heard it.

I am clearly mistaken: mea culpa.

Thank you for that.

If that causes you to ignore EVERYTHING that I say, then so be it.

Why would you think that? Where did I imply anything remotely similar to that?

My friends normally try to understand what I am trying to communicate rather than take exception with everything I say.

I am trying to understand you, but sometimes that is not the easiest thing to do. My friends normally don't insult me by calling me the original Warm Water Wimp. I try to avoid saying things you might take as an insult because you are my friend. I try to be careful how I say things.

I will stop just short of saying that you shill for sponsors, and I don't doubt that many of your posts in favour of a current SB supporter are sincere, but your remonstrations of SB members who disagree with your glowing reviews of sponsor products are glaring.

Sorry, but that's over the line. None of us knows the motivations of another.

Your argument is logically inconsistent. I need not belong to any organization in order to see fault in it. The demonstration of fault is not unprofessional.

I agree.

I have found his posts to be a bit much as well, so in a moment of weakness I proposed to him a scenario which was designed to prompt him to consider how it might feel to be on the other end of his half truths. There may have been a better way of making my point, but at the time nothing else came to mind.

Also, I would like to note that in my post no actionable statements were made. Specifically, "would you be offended if someone said that, as a businessman, you are..." is a question, not a statement.

Instead of defending your words, you should be apologizing for them.

I don't respect anyone who in a conversation avoids the points in-issue and only responds with insults, innuendo and sarcasm. There simply is no excuse for this behavior.

I don't respect the arguments either. They totally miss the point and try to move the discussion from one on the points to a personal basis. As my mother used to tell me, "Two wrongs don't make a right." When people use such tactics, we should not respond in kind.

 

[Crush]

Instead of defending your words, you should be apologizing for them.

Walter,

I do not feel that I was defending what I said. Rather, I feel that I was explaining what I said and why. My communication skills are imperfect, but my comment, intended to illustrate a point, still seems to me to have been the best (albeit imperfect) way of delivering the message.

Walter, I hope to not make an enemy of you on this one topic. However, it has become abundantly clear to me that on SB as in life, crossing the line depends not only on what you said, but to whom you said it.

 

[Walter]

I do not feel that I was defending what I said. Rather, I feel that I was explaining what I said and why.

I thought it came across as both.

My communication skills are imperfect, but my comment, intended to illustrate a point, still seems to me to have been the best (albeit imperfect) way of delivering the message.

I understand what you wanted to communicate and I agree with your message. Your method of communicating it was unsuccessful. Several of us have tried unsuccessfully to communicate that same messaage to Pete. In communicating the message to Pete, your method seems to be no better, but no worse than others. In communicating the message to others, it seems your method communicated something unintended.

Walter, I hope to not make an enemy of you on this one topic.

I don't see that happening.

However, it has become abundantly clear to me that on SB as in life, crossing the line depends not only on what you said, but to whom you said it.

It can be that way here. Say anything bad about PADI, justified or not, and many think you've crossed the line. I disagree with the concept, but you are right.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Your actual point, which was asking Bob's opinion on my ability as an instructor based on incorrect information you were giving him. I don't know Bob's opinion on my ability as an instructor, but I did know the information you were supplying was way off base.

It's difficult for me to keep up with all the assertions and hyperbole that's been flying around in this thread ... but this one I can address.

I have no opinion to offer on your ability as an instructor. I have only the history of your posts on which to judge, much of which I've been in agreement with, some of which I haven't, but I've never been given a reason to think you anything other than someone who would be consciencious about trying hard to provide a high standard for your students.

In the end, the only way to truly judge anyone is by the quality of the student they turn out ... which is always going to be subjective, because so much of that is also up to the student. But as diving instructors, the divers who leave our class ARE the representations of our ability as an instructor.

Someday I hope to dive with you. Then we'll know more about each other ... as instructors, as divers, and as people.

Gotta keep it in perspective, folks ... however passionate we get in here ... however much we agree or disagree with each other ... it's just conversation. In the real world, I'd jump at the chance to dive with any of y'all ... because in reality that's the best way for any of us to get to know who the other person really is ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Thalassamania]

...

In the end, the only way to truly judge anyone is by the quality of the student they turn out ... which is always going to be subjective, because so much of that is also up to the student. But as diving instructors, the divers who leave our class ARE the representations of our ability as an instructor.

...

I judge instructors the same way I do university faculty, there are three basic criteria, slightly modified: teaching (measured bythe number of different levels taught and both the immediate quality of new students and the long term contribution of past students), research (which to me includes writing, work on panels, etc.), and service (to agencies, communities, other groups and organizations). Thus I'd describe neither the nose-to-the-grindstone resort instructor who churns out 1,000 certifcations a year nor the agency drone who writes bumph all year and then teaches a class or two, as being of high calibre.

 

[DCBC]

Although I've summarized (from my perspective) what I see to be some of the differences in the training philosophies in post #1110 (http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/5123579-post1110.html), I would be interested in how you interpret the roles that each of the following groups play/influence the training philosophy taken by any particular agency. Please add or modify this list accordingly.

Diver education involves:

1. The Agency

a) How it markets its particular brand of training;
b) The product (training standard) itself;
c) How it may restrict / empower the instructor to deliver a quality product; and
d) How it maintains quality assurance

2. The Instructor

a) How the training program is delivered;
b) How they may or may not be influenced by the "business aspects of diving" in how the final product is realized (LDS, etc.);
c) To what extent do they juggle the "gray area" and/or enhance the "minimum standards."

3. The Student

a) What motivates divers to learn;
b) Are they realistically limited by the type of training that's available to them (available in the local area, dominated by a particular agency, etc.);
c) How they are influenced by advertising, LDS, other divers and diver forums;
d) Diver retention (why do they continue to dive or fail to).

I would think that these are some of the factors that a training agency would consider in developing and refining its training philosophy (they want to be successful in the market to some degree). Obviously, there may be several others, but these are a few thoughts...

 

[Walter]

1. The Agency

a) How it markets its particular brand of training;
b) The product (training standard) itself;
c) How it may restrict / empower the instructor to deliver a quality product; and
d) How it maintains quality assurance

a) Marketing - Some agencies are dishonest in their marketing. If not for that, I wouldn't have a gripe with any of them. I may disagree over their methods, but that disagreement includes supporting their right to training any way they want to informed consumers.

b) Standards - possibly the single most important aspect of training and what makes the biggest difference between one class and another. Some agencies' standards require confidence building skills, others don't. Some agencies' standards require elementary rescue skills, others (with the exception of a tired diver tow) do not. Some agencies' standards allow instructors to require additional material, others do not.

c) Restrictions - This can play an important role. Some agencies give their instructors what is required and allow them to organize it as they see best. Other agencies require specific skills to be taught in specific pool sessions. Often this order is illogical and makes learning to dive more difficult. For example, requiring a student to maintaining control of depth underwater in the first session while not teaching weighting until the second session and not teaching neutral buoyancy until the third makes absolutely no sense to me.

d) Policing the instructors - Refusing to listen to hearsay to start an investigation is ridiculous. I agree hearsay should not be used to convict, but hearsay can tell an agency about possible problems. I attended a seminar at DEMA where I heard of a QA investigator send to investigate a death. Now, I wasn't on the scene, so I don't have any knowledge of the validity of the claim, but we were told of this agency investigator who arrived and immediately started coaching witnesses to change their stories. I have no idea if this really happened, but if it did, it's wrong to the point of being evil.

2. The Instructor

a) How the training program is delivered;
b) How they may or may not be influenced by the "business aspects of diving" in how the final product is realized (LDS, etc.);
c) To what extent do they juggle the "gray area" and/or enhance the "minimum standards."

a) Delivery - Some let others deliver everything. I suspect some of those can't actually teach. Plug in a CD, log on to the internet.

b) Making money - There's nothing wrong with this. Making money at the expense of class quality is wrong. Large classes are about sacrificing class quality for profit. Short classes are about sacrificing class quality for profit.

c) Additions to the class - Does the instructor actively look for ways to improve their class? Does the instructor add skills other agencies require that his doesn't? Does the instructor adjust techniques as he teaches to suit different students. Does the instructor observe other instructors and pick up tips from them by watching with a critical eye.

3. The Student

a) What motivates divers to learn;
b) Are they realistically limited by the type of training that's available to them (available in the local area, dominated by a particular agency, etc.);
c) How they are influenced by advertising, LDS, other divers and diver forums;
d) Diver retention (why do they continue to dive or fail to).

a) Motivation - I assume students are motivated to learn by trying to make diving as safe as possible. I assume people are motivated to dive because it's fun.

b) Restricted - Maybe, but they are more likely restricted by a lack of imagination or a lack of opening their eyes. In the electronic age, it's much easier to find alternatives than it was when I learned to dive. I found a non-traditional alternative.

c) Retention - Divers drop out for many reasons. Diving isn't everyone's bowl of cherries. I've seen one of my mentors, whose living depended on diving, tell people they should take up tennis. It's not for everyone.

I suspect a large number drop out because they never get comfortable diving. They know they aren't really ready to be out on their own. They are afraid to continue. They have that little fear just under the surface all the time just waiting to take control. Many of them never admit they are dropping out, they are just not diving this weekend, they'll dive next summer. Next weekend, next summer never comes. This is one of the biggest problem with the fast track classes, in my opinion.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I judge instructors the same way I do university faculty...

Therein lies the majority of our difference in perspective.

The vast majority of scuba instructors are nothing like university faculty ... nor do they need to be, since the vast majority of their students are nothing like university students ... nor do they need to be.

I try hard not to lose sight of the fact that my students want to dive as a part-time recreational activity ... not something they must know and do as part of their career. Most of what I consider the "best" instructors in my area teach part-time ... not out of a desire to influence agency standards, or to conduct "research" ... but out of a desire to help produce divers who are competent to dive in our local water. In fact, the best ones frequently train the divers they end up diving with on a regularly basis.

Sure, they can't tie one-handed bowlines in three-finger mittens ... but neither can I. Nor have I ever had occasion to want to.

Different criteria, different perspectives ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[DCBC]

a) Marketing - Some agencies are dishonest in their marketing. If not for that, I wouldn't have a gripe with any of them. I may disagree over their methods, but that disagreement includes supporting their right to training any way they want to informed consumers.

How specifically are some agencies dishonest. Obviously each agency wants to sell its "product." Are agencies saying something specifically inaccurate, or is it more of a lack of disclosure?

b) Standards - possibly the single most important aspect of training and what makes the biggest difference between one class and another. Some agencies' standards require confidence building skills, others don't. Some agencies' standards require elementary rescue skills, others (with the exception of a tired diver tow) do not. Some agencies' standards allow instructors to require additional material, others do not.

I agree that in some agencies that don't allow additions to their training program, the only thing that can be compared is the agency standard. Agencies that allow an instructor to add to the program, it's much more difficult to quantify the extent of the training being offered; other than that its scope is greater than what the "minimum standards" dictate.

Do you feel that the largest difference is the instructor's unwillingness to teach past the minimums, or the restrictions placed by some agencies on their instructors prohibiting this?

What is the policy of SEI in this regard? Why do you think that they have taken this position?

c) Restrictions - This can play an important role. Some agencies give their instructors what is required and allow them to organize it as they see best. Other agencies require specific skills to be taught in specific pool sessions. Often this order is illogical and makes learning to dive more difficult. For example, requiring a student to maintaining control of depth underwater in the first session while not teaching weighting until the second session and not teaching neutral buoyancy until the third makes absolutely no sense to me.

Is the sequence of instruction recommended or required by the agencies you've mentioned?

d) Policing the instructors - Refusing to listen to hearsay to start an investigation is ridiculous. I agree hearsay should not be used to convict, but hearsay can tell an agency about possible problems. I attended a seminar at DEMA where I heard of a QA investigator send to investigate a death. Now, I wasn't on the scene, so I don't have any knowledge of the validity of the claim, but we were told of this agency investigator who arrived and immediately started coaching witnesses to change their stories. I have no idea if this really happened, but if it did, it's wrong to the point of being evil.

I hadn't heard of that. I would think that a QA investigator who would act in such a manner would be guilty of Obstruct Justice. In Canada, this is a criminal offense which addresses those trying to manipulate the judicial system, evidence, or the statements of witnesses. At the least this practice is unethical.

a) Delivery - Some let others deliver everything. I suspect some of those can't actually teach. Plug in a CD, log on to the internet.

I would think that the extent of this would be directed by the agency. Are you aware of what agencies are currently offering or planning to offer on-line training?

b) Making money - There's nothing wrong with this. Making money at the expense of class quality is wrong. Large classes are about sacrificing class quality for profit. Short classes are about sacrificing class quality for profit.

I suppose that this is subjective. If an agency allows large classes and the standards require less instruction, this would be seen as normal. I suppose the only measure would be to compare agency requirements.

The problem seems to be complex:

a) How much training do diving students need from their perspective?
b) How much training do the instructors tell the students they need?
c) How much training is really required?
d) How much training does the agency require?
e) How much training is ideal for the IDS, who likely wants to be price competitive and who may be more interested in equipment sales than the sale of training courses?

c) Additions to the class - Does the instructor actively look for ways to improve their class? Does the instructor add skills other agencies require that his doesn't? Does the instructor adjust techniques as he teaches to suit different students. Does the instructor observe other instructors and pick up tips from them by watching with a critical eye.

If the agency takes the perspective that certain skill-sets are unneeded at the OW level, who is to say that these skills were ever really required? Are there certain skills that statistically prepare a diver better than others? We all of course have our personal opinion, but has anyone specifically looked at the cause of diving fatalities and made a determination in-which the agencies can better the current training requirements?

a) Motivation - I assume students are motivated to learn by trying to make diving as safe as possible. I assume people are motivated to dive because it's fun.

Well said.

b) Restricted - Maybe, but they are more likely restricted by a lack of imagination or a lack of opening their eyes. In the electronic age, it's much easier to find alternatives than it was when I learned to dive. I found a non-traditional alternative.

I think it was Kingpatzer that mentioned that in some areas, certain agencies provide the only training available. If for example, 80% of all dive shops are affiliated with one agency, what chance does an uninformed consumer really have in finding an alternative training program? How is this best resolved?

c) Retention - Divers drop out for many reasons. Diving isn't everyone's bowl of cherries. I've seen one of my mentors, whose living depended on diving, tell people they should take up tennis. It's not for everyone.

I suspect a large number drop out because they never get comfortable diving. They know they aren't really ready to be out on their own. They are afraid to continue. They have that little fear just under the surface all the time just waiting to take control. Many of them never admit they are dropping out, they are just not diving this weekend, they'll dive next summer. Next weekend, next summer never comes. This is one of the biggest problem with the fast track classes, in my opinion.

So what do you (from your experience) feel is the primary reason why divers stop diving before/after 2 or 5 years? Or do you feel that they are not primarily interested in diving in the local area (vacation only divers)?

How do you feel that vacation diving has/has not influenced the current agency training programs that exist today? Thanks for your input.