The Philosophy of Diver Training

[Kingpatzer]

Not my intent, but Walter was able to comprehend it.

The was intended to indicate that I was trying to be funny. Apparently I failed in that attempt.

Perhaps you may like to address my response to you in post 287?

As per Cave Diver's suggestion: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/5079206-post287.html

Perhaps times have changed. When I was a PADI Instructor, PADI insurance only covered those areas that are part of the PADI program. PADI would not defend an instructor from liability outside of its program; which if you think about it, makes a lot of sense. If this is still the case, all the PADI instructors teaching outside the PADI box, are really putting themselves out on a limb; don't you think?

I would suspect that depends on what insurance one purchases. If your insurance is through PADI's contract then that may well be the case. If it is not, then the question is likely more open. That said, what of instructors who teach without specific agency affiliation or with affiliation through multiple agencies - how do they handle insurance issues and why would their situation be different? If an SEI instructor is encouraged to teach outside of their standards to cover material they feel needs to be covered are they in a precarious situation or is insurance available to cover that?

I believe you are incorrect. PADI specifically prohibits teaching certain skills within its program. This was the purpose of the "optional" skills category. Why would PADI specifically list what could be "optionally taught," if anything could be? Can you teach buddy breathing if you wanted to?

Instructor optional skills are tied into their recommended training sequences, and prohibited skills are, well, prohibited. However, it is not clear to me that teaching skills beyond the specifics of the OW course, if they are applicable for OW divers in the local environment, are specifically prohibited. For example, if the best entry into the only reasonably available OW training area is a surf entry, then teaching surf entry, while not part of the course standards, would be appropriate.

The instructors are the ones that control the certification of divers, not the dive shops.

Perhaps on paper. In reality instructors get their students through dive shops, and the shop owners are the one's who are dictating turn around times, classroom and pool availability times, and so on. It is naive to believe this is the case.

Dive shops don't generally carry liability insurance for the certification of divers.

Dive shops with more than one instructor can get shop insurance that can then be passed onto the instructors which is cheaper than individual insurance. My insurance is through my shop's discount program, not directly purchased by me.

They can influence the instructors to do things their way, but the onus is on the instructors to make the certification decision in-light of diver safety. Instructors that aqueous to the dive shop, shouldn't hold an instructor's rating imo.

There's a line between a diver who is safe enough from a risk management perspective and one who is not. Instructors do make mistakes about where that line is. However, there is also the reality that instructors who want to teach and make an impact are, for all practical purposes, limited to working with or for dive shops. There are a few rare exceptions, but they are precisely rare exceptions.

In the PADI context you are correct, but to those that do not agree with the PADI training philosophy, you are mistaken.

The question should not be if one agrees with a particular philosophy, but if that philosophy is internally consistent achieves the stated goals. I contend that any rational person looking at the PADI system will see a progression that is more than capable of taking a diver from an entry level warm-water vacation diver to a very accomplished recreational scuba diver.

In the aggregate it may cost more than some other systems -- not entirely due to costs but also due PADI's rather astute business plan of designing their program to work almost exclusively through dive stores -- but the result is a very complete diver. By focusing on a PADI OW diver and judging it by standards it does not claim for itself is frankly disingenuous. When the goal of that OW program is not the same goal as, say, the GUE rec diver or SEI OW program, judging it in comparison to that one course misses the point.

The underlying philosophy drives the system created, not merely a single course.

This confuses me. How is it that the skills in the standards are not being taught "well as it should," yet the same instructors have time to teach skill-sets outside of the training program?

I didn't realize you considered all instructors completely and fully interchangeable.

My statements are not subjective. . . . These experiences have been objective. If this makes it "difficult" for you or anyone else to have a discussion with me on this topic, that's indeed unfortunate.

I'm curious if you know what those words mean. As far as I'm aware, every human being is a thinking and feeling subject. Human experiences are tautologically subjective since human experience are experiences of a subject.

But you are clearly some sort of divine being, so yea, it's rather pointless to have a discussion. Clearly you win.

 

[Walter]

If an SEI instructor is encouraged to teach outside of their standards to cover material they feel needs to be covered are they in a precarious situation or is insurance available to cover that?

It is not "outside" the standards. SEI's philosophy is their standards outline the absolute minimum. If you do not meet those minimums, you are outside the standards. If you meet the standards or you meet the standards and exceed them, you are within the standards. As long as you meet or exceed standards, you are covered.

By focusing on a PADI OW diver and judging it by standards it does not claim for itself is frankly disingenuous. When the goal of that OW program is not the same goal as, say, the GUE rec diver or SEI OW program, judging it in comparison to that one course misses the point.

Perhaps, but if so why do I often see people posting, "It's the instructor, not the agency?" The bottom line is these entry level classes are marketed as being the equivalent of other agencies' entry level classes. With that in mind, I do not believe it is disingenuous at all.

 

[DCBC]

I would suspect that depends on what insurance one purchases. If your insurance is through PADI's contract then that may well be the case. If it is not, then the question is likely more open. That said, what of instructors who teach without specific agency affiliation or with affiliation through multiple agencies - how do they handle insurance issues and why would their situation be different? If an SEI instructor is encouraged to teach outside of their standards to cover material they feel needs to be covered are they in a precarious situation or is insurance available to cover that?

No one (to my knowledge) has ever been insured to teach scuba diving without agency affiliation. PADI's insurance negates coverage of subject matter outside of the PADI curriculum. So much for adding to the PADI program without personal risk of liability.

My insurance covers me for each and every agency that I teach for. I must however follow the agency guidelines, however I'm not restricted by them, as per the agencies guidelines to provide any and all training necessary to insure diver safety at the level certified. Subsequently I'm covered for everything I teach.

Instructor optional skills are tied into their recommended training sequences, and prohibited skills are, well, prohibited.

Yes, other agencies do not have this restriction.

Perhaps on paper. In reality instructors get their students through dive shops, and the shop owners are the one's who are dictating turn around times, classroom and pool availability times, and so on. It is naive to believe this is the case.

It is irresponsible to have a dive shop owner affect what training is or is not provided to the student. This is the Instructor's responsibility.

There's a line between a diver who is safe enough from a risk management perspective and one who is not. Instructors do make mistakes about where that line is. However, there is also the reality that instructors who want to teach and make an impact are, for all practical purposes, limited to working with or for dive shops. There are a few rare exceptions, but they are precisely rare exceptions.

If any instructor has the desire, s/he can run things on his own terms. I have done so for years, as have several others. It's a matter of choice and collaboration.

The question should not be if one agrees with a particular philosophy, but if that philosophy is internally consistent achieves the stated goals. I contend that any rational person looking at the PADI system will see a progression that is more than capable of taking a diver from an entry level warm-water vacation diver to a very accomplished recreational scuba diver.

The PADI philosophy requires the diver to take several courses before he is trained to attain the goal. From the time he is first certified, until the time the goal is attained, the diver is at additional risk.

In the aggregate it may cost more than some other systems -- not entirely due to costs but also due PADI's rather astute business plan of designing their program to work almost exclusively through dive stores -- but the result is a very complete diver. By focusing on a PADI OW diver and judging it by standards it does not claim for itself is frankly disingenuous. When the goal of that OW program is not the same goal as, say, the GUE rec diver or SEI OW program, judging it in comparison to that one course misses the point.

The underlying philosophy drives the system created, not merely a single course.

I would agree that the PADI training costs would likely be more than other systems to achieve a similar goal. If however, you took a graduate out of NAUI, ACUC, CMAS (and from what I've been told SEI) diving training course, you would find them all competent to act as a contributing member of the Buddy Team and to dive in similar conditions (or better) in-which they were trained and to dive independently without the aid of a DM or Instructor on day one.

I believe that this philosophy provides increased safety, rather than just keep your fingers crossed that a newly certified PADI diver will eventually come back for more training. Until they do, they may pose a danger to themselves and their buddy imo.

I'm curious if you know what those words mean. As far as I'm aware, every human being is a thinking and feeling subject. Human experiences are tautologically subjective since human experience are experiences of a subject.

I would suggest that you look-up the words subjective and objective in the dictionary.

But you are clearly some sort of divine being, so yea, it's rather pointless to have a discussion. Clearly you win.

No need to sweet talk me King. Your sincere admiration is more than enough. :mooner:

 

[Kingpatzer]

Perhaps, but if so why do I often see people posting, "It's the instructor, not the agency?" The bottom line is these entry level classes are marketed as being the equivalent of other agencies' entry level classes. With that in mind, I do not believe it is disingenuous at all.

The reason for the comment is that for the vast, vast majority of divers out there, they will never be more than the very occasional warm water vacation divers diving with dive centers and operators who provide an instructor or DM in the water weather you want one or not. To learn how to dive in the North Atlantic is more than overkill.

By way of example on how much DMs are used, I'm going on a trip next month through my LDS. The trip is going to be comprised of 6 instructors, 2 DMs, and 4 folks who are all accomplished divers with years of significant and frequent diving under their belts.

Yet, the dive op we are going to be using will have DMs in the water with us per their policy.

 

[DCBC]

To learn how to dive in the North Atlantic is more than overkill.

Unless of course you live locally or choose to dive here. Are you aware that there are hundreds of thousands of divers that dive cold water; many of which have never been to vacation country?

 

[FireInMyBones]

I have never dove at a resort or in "warm water." I live in South Carolina and will be going on my first trip away from our cool, dark, murky lakes this summer.

 

[Walter]

The reason for the comment is that for the vast, vast majority of divers out there, they will never be more than the very occasional warm water vacation divers diving with dive centers and operators who provide an instructor or DM in the water weather you want one or not. To learn how to dive in the North Atlantic is more than overkill.

Where did you find your numbers? Lots of divers never dive with a DM or instructor after their OW class is complete. I see it most weekends all around Florida. They have Open Water cards and they go diving. If their certification is only for guided dives, shouldn't it be marketed as such? If their certification is only for guided dives, shouldn't they be informed? I don't claim to speak for any agency, but I suspect PADI would be upset to hear folks claiming their Open Water certification isn't valid unless accompanied by an DM or instructor.

 

[Thalassamania]

If PADI were to take the same line that KP is on and admit that their program is designed for people who don't really want to dive on a regular basis and who only want to dive in warm clear water with an escort, I'd have no problem and no objection to PADI's programs.

 

[TechBlue]

The reason for the comment is that for the vast, vast majority of divers out there, they will never be more than the very occasional warm water vacation divers diving with dive centers and operators who provide an instructor or DM in the water weather you want one or not. To learn how to dive in the North Atlantic is more than overkill.

By way of example on how much DMs are used, I'm going on a trip next month through my LDS. The trip is going to be comprised of 6 instructors, 2 DMs, and 4 folks who are all accomplished divers with years of significant and frequent diving under their belts.

Yet, the dive op we are going to be using will have DMs in the water with us per their policy.

Where are you drawing your information from? People dive where they can find water, NE divers, quarry divers many of them have never seen warm water. The beauty of diving the North Atlantic is that it does prepare you for all kinds of conditions and you can dive anywhere with no problems.

DM's operating as guides as opposed to babysitters is not quite the same.

 

[Crush]

If PADI were to take the same line that KP is on and admit that their program is designed for people who don't really want to dive on a regular basis and who only want to dive in warm clear water with an escort, I'd have no problem and no objection to PADI's programs.

+1 to that