The LEARNERS PERMIT! [Archive]

CamG

November 30th, 2009, 09:21 AM

Greetings fellow Scuba Boarders. I was reminded yesterday of what a great group of people that the diving community is made up of! I was fishing my Adv. Nitrox and Deco. class after having a month long lay off due to illness. Less than flawless and rusty would be good descriptions of my dive. So why am I bringing this up?
Well it took me back to where it all began Open Water. I will never forget the struggles and mental battles I fought to get through the training. NOT EVERYONE IS A NATURAL!
If you are struggling with OW training right now know that you are not alone!
Many have been where you are at, HANG IN THERE, COMMIT TO TRAINING AND GUTTING THROUGH IT! It is so worth it in the end!
I have been Blessed in every sense of the word to have had stellar instructors.
Both are from different agencies but both have the same passion for dive training and diving! It has been my pleasure to get to know these individuals and call them friends.
Take your time finding instructors and get references, it pays off HUGE in the end!
A little time and effort will ensure a great experience.
Never forget that any card or certification is a LEARNERS PERMIT! You have been given the skills under supervision and now it is time to go out and build experience in a safe manor. Whether you are OW or doing Deco dives everyone starts from humble places. You are going to have less than perfect, down right miserable dives!
Welcome these, for they teach us the most. Please understand if everything goes perfect it is awesome but when the struggles begin it shows us what we really need work on. Then real training begins and we learn to overcome! Safer, better divers on a evolving path of learning that hopefully never stops!
I passed the class but with humility and was reminded that to struggle at times is better than never have a bump in the road! Welcome to humanity and learn to laugh at yourself and learn from your short comings.
Take heart where ever you are training and for what ever class, relax and have fun!
CamG Keep diving....keep training....keep learning!:)

gypsyjim

November 30th, 2009, 09:34 AM

DCBC

November 30th, 2009, 10:15 AM

Never forget that any card or certification is a LEARNERS PERMIT!

Hi Cam, I agree that a diver should continue to further his/her diving knowledge and experience after certification. Unfortunately however, too many Instructors consider an OW certification as a "learners permit." They do not take the time necessary to impart the appropriate skills to the diver, to allow him/her to dive as a valued member of a buddy team, independently of a DM or Instructor.

Many so called "diving leaders" do not possess the necessary skill-sets to deal with the short-comings of these divers. All too often DMs are only at the beginning of the learning curve themselves and have gone too far too fast in the certification process (no insult intended to the many qualified DMs and Instructors that have developed the appropriate skill-sets). The zero to hero group just doesn't cut it.

Instructors certify weak students only to later say: "Hey, it's just a license to learn!" This cliche gets twisted from what I believe you were making as your point. It is too often used as a cop-out for not creating capable divers.

A C-Card is not a license to learn skills that are required to maintain diver safety. Other skills come with further training and experience, but nothing further is necessary for the diver to dive in conditions similar to those where he was certified safely. If the diver needs to learn more to insure his safety in these conditions; s/he shouldn't have been certified in the first-place!

gypsyjim

November 30th, 2009, 10:34 AM

I have to say that, especially in the beginning certifications there is no way the instructor has done any more than "just cracked the door open a bit" for the new diver, with just a couple of days of class room and training dives. That is one reason many good instructors and LDS offer new divers the oportunity to continue diving with their group after issuing the certification; there is no way the new diver is fully trained in a few days of training and a small handful of dives.

New divers have been given a basic set of skills, and the knowledge that will allow them to begin to improve and expand on those skill, threw experience. Diving with more experienced divers for a while after they have been certified is a great way to grow ever more skilled and comfrortable in this sport.

The idea that having a card is the end on one's training can be a very dangerous attitude. I have dived with such people, once, and I much prefer diving with a diver who's attitude is one of ever searching to improve and grow. They are much safer to dive with, and a lot more fun too!

Kingpatzer

November 30th, 2009, 10:55 AM

A C-Card is not a license to learn skills that are required to maintain diver safety. Other skills come with further training and experience, but nothing further is necessary for the diver to dive in conditions similar to those where he was certified safely. If the diver needs to learn more to insure his safety in these conditions; s/he shouldn't have been certified in the first-place!

Ultimately, DCBC, the market has moved on from the time when people would spend weeks and even months learning to dive so that they would have been trained with the skills to do whatever they wanted. And while I was not around then, I would be anything that even in that environment the diver was still on a learning curve and could not be considered as safe and skilled as a diver with much more experience.

Today's diver does not leave OW training and go make 200' dives to penetrate wrecks (if they ever did). They leave OW training to make a few dives under DM supervision on a vacation once every year (if not less frequently).

The industry has changed to reflect that reality as well.

There is no doubt that to be a frequent, regular diver someone coming out of OW needs more training. But there is also little reason to suspect that the training they are getting is truly insufficient for the diving they do.

The flip side is that because divers are diving far less frequently than the typical diver of the past, more in-depth training would likely be quickly lost on them anyway. Spending more time and money on training might seem like a good idea, but the question of actual return on that investment would certainly be up in the air for the average diver who is only making a few dives per year anyway.

Compare scuba diving to activities like bicycling and I'm willing to bet that you'll find that per participant, cycling is far more dangerous. Just by way of anecdote, in my neighborhood there are about 20 kids who ride bikes around the neighborhood regularly. I know that at least 4 of them have had to go to the hospital because of accidents over the last few years I've lived there. By the same token, the PADI dive shop I frequent has about the twice that number of regular active divers, and hundreds of vacation divers they have trained, yet not one of the regulars has ever been hospitalized for a diving related injury nor are we aware of any of the vacation divers ever having an injury related to diving.

Now, there are aspects of dive training I wish were significantly improved. I would like to see better buoyancy control simply to increase the enjoyment of the average diver an to protect reefs and underwater structures. I'd like to see slightly more basic rescue training for the OW diver and to have rescue not require AOW certification. But those issues aside, I'm wondering if there is any empirical evidence available to show that the current level of dive training is making diving unacceptably dangerous. I suspect not.

There are real advances and changes in the market that mitigate risk for this changed dive population. J-valves are no longer used, at least by OW divers, regulators are far more likely to fail open, DM's are part of the average dive, site selection limits environmental hazards for inexperienced divers, etc.

Bret Gilliam had a blog post on Undercurrent's web sight recently where he noted that in handling some where around 400,000 divers, with no restrictions on diver activity, he saw a total of 9 cases of DCS. That's not deaths, that's merely DCS cases. Compare that to your local ski slope. Or better yet, driving fatalities where experienced drivers who have frequently had a full semester of driving education classes in high school manage to kill themselves at much higher rates.

The problem with your view is that it simply doesn't reflect reality. In reality programs like PADI's are sufficient in their design. Certainly there are instructors and shops who are passing certifications on people who shouldn't get one. But many of those I'm sure you'd look at and claim are insufficiently trained simply are in fact adequately skilled for what it is they are going to do.

And the one's who want to do more are going to come get more training to fulfill those desires.

DCBC

November 30th, 2009, 11:30 AM

I have to say that, especially in the beginning certifications there is no way the instructor has done any more than "just cracked the door open a bit" for the new diver, with just a couple of days of class room and training dives. That is one reason many good instructors and LDS offer new divers the oportunity to continue diving with their group after issuing the certification; there is no way the new diver is fully trained in a few days of training and a small handful of dives.

I totally agree; the learning process should never stop. The problem (as I see it anyway) with giving someone a card before s/he is competent to do their own dive planning and complete a dive safely, is that they may never seek further training. Although an Instructor may offer further training, the diver is in no way obliged to take it. People have the funny idea that when they go to an Instructor to learn something and pass a course, they feel that they are competent. Go figure. :-)

DCBC

November 30th, 2009, 12:00 PM

Ultimately, DCBC, the market has moved on from the time when people would spend weeks and even months learning to dive so that they would have been trained with the skills to do whatever they wanted. ...The industry has changed to reflect that reality as well.

Yes. The "market" has moved on;"the industry" has changed. The word "industry" itself implies "commerce." It's now all about the money.

The Society has changed, not just about diving, about many things. "The consumer" wants it all and they want it now! Some people see this as a way of turning a buck. Others see the change of standards as taking short cuts; the easy way out.

Despite the statistics, people will die that didn't need to if they received more inclusive training. I'm not saying a whole lot of them, but some. What is acceptable depends upon ones perspective. If the "one" happened to be my son, I'd look at things from a different perspective; as would you if the victim was your loved one.

I have acted as an expert witness in too many cases where death resulted from poor training. I'm aware that people choose to ignore the rules and that's not their instructor's fault, but when a person is not trained to plan a dive, made aware of hazards that end-up killing the diver, I cannot help but shake my head. Knowing that someone made a buck out of the process doesn't make things somehow right.

...The problem with your view is that it simply doesn't reflect reality.

Who's reality? What I see is quite a few divers who are unsafe. I don't know when the last time you were on a diving charter, but the one's I've been on indicate that many divers don't have a clue. To me, that's the reality.

I understand that most of these people do exactly what you suggest; dive a couple of times every other year, while on winter vacation in warm water. At other times however, I see poorly prepared divers wearing dry suits and diving in condition which they are just not prepared. When I ran a charter business, my staff and I ended-up having to save one every couple of weeks.

N2DeepInAz

November 30th, 2009, 12:35 PM

Very well stated Cam and I totally agree with you. Was out diving on the boat this weekend with a tech instructor and during our conversation he said something to the effect of, 'if you're not working on a skill when you're in the water, you're just cheating yourself and you always need to continue to learn, practice and develop as a diver.'

No amount of training can replace the benefits of practical experience attained when diving regularly. Confined water is great to start skill development, but you won't gain much experience unless you dive in OW conditions over and over again.

Kingpatzer

November 30th, 2009, 12:41 PM

Despite the statistics, people will die that didn't need to if they received more inclusive training.

Hasn't that always been the case though? Oh sure, the level of training or mentoring would perhaps have been on the higher end, but it still comes down to the same principle - there could always be more training. The debate isn't really about if someone is insufficiently trained to eliminate all risk. The debate is about balancing training costs with risk.

I'm not saying a whole lot of them, but some. What is acceptable depends upon ones perspective. If the "one" happened to be my son, I'd look at things from a different perspective; as would you if the victim was your loved one.
Are you arguing for more driver training this hard? Or more bicycle training? Or more ski instruction? My family engages in a whole host of activities that carry inherent risk and where risk can be reduced with more training. But honestly, diving is about the least risky thing we do in terms of recreation. If I had a couple thousand dollars and hundred hours more to spend on training for my kids, it wouldn't be in scuba diving for the simple reason that for someone engaged in a multitude of activities the risk-reward ratio for those training dollars would be better spent elsewhere.

I have acted as an expert witness in too many cases where death resulted from poor training.
Given the low number of deaths compared to the number of trained participants, is it possible that your perspective is skewed precisely because of these experiences?

. . . but when a person is not trained to plan a dive, made aware of hazards that end-up killing the diver, I cannot help but shake my head. Knowing that someone made a buck out of the process doesn't make things somehow right.
I know of no training agency that certifies OW divers without teaching them how to plan a dive.

Who's reality? What I see is quite a few divers who are unsafe. I don't know when the last time you were on a diving charter, but the one's I've been on indicate that many divers don't have a clue. To me, that's the reality.
I wouldn't say they don't have a clue. I would say they are largely unskilled and need to be right where they are -- on a charter diving under the supervision of DM's and skilled operators rather than out diving by themselves. I'll refer you again to the recent blog in Undercurrents -- at least one experienced vacation dive charter operator did't see the injuries you seem to expect.

At other times however, I see poorly prepared divers wearing dry suits and diving in condition which they are just not prepared. When I ran a charter business, my staff and I ended-up having to save one every couple of weeks.I'm not sure what type of charter you ran or under what conditions you dove, so I can't comment on that point. What I do know is this: even if you're right that there could be significant risk reductions with more training (a point I'm not particularly willing to concede given the available data on how much risk there is to begin with) in a culture where people engage in multiple risky activities is Scuba the best place to spend that time and money?

If the scuba community really desires to see better training, then there are only a few ways to proceed:

* Engage the government to regulate training requirements in terms of course content, length and evaluation criteria.
* Return to a club system and get the money out of the process entirely.

I really don't expect to see many instructors following the second option, and I very much doubt people want the first.

DCBC

November 30th, 2009, 01:21 PM

Hasn't that always been the case though? Oh sure, the level of training or mentoring would perhaps have been on the higher end, but it still comes down to the same principle - there could always be more training. The debate isn't really about if someone is insufficiently trained to eliminate all risk. The debate is about balancing training costs with risk.

Yes, training can always be increased. The philosophy has changed from becoming certified and being competent to be a member of a buddy team, diving independent from a DM or Instructor; to requiring someone to take you by the hand and not being competent to rescue your buddy if this is required (that's the DM's job). I just don't see the current formula to be the correct one.

Are you arguing for more driver training this hard? Or more bicycle training? Or more ski instruction? My family engages in a whole host of activities that carry inherent risk and where risk can be reduced with more training. But honestly, diving is about the least risky thing we do in terms of recreation. If I had a couple thousand dollars and hundred hours more to spend on training for my kids, it wouldn't be in scuba diving for the simple reason that for someone engaged in a multitude of activities the risk-reward ratio for those training dollars would be better spent elsewhere.

LOL Yes. Perhaps I could teach your family to parachute. I can hand you a chute, show you how to put it on and show you the ripcord. I'll take 10 other jumpers as well (I can increase profits this way). We'll jump-out together; if I see that you're in trouble I'll try to do something about it (unless I'm busy trying to save someone else. :-)

As far as a risk-reward ratio is concerned, I don't encourage people who are non-swimmers to dive into the deep end of a pool because there's a lifeguard on-duty. If they do and the lifeguard saves them 100 out of 100 times, I won't be saying that the statistics promote a safety factor of non-swimmers to dive into deep water (even though I have the statistics to back it up).

Given the low number of deaths compared to the number of trained participants, is it possible that your perspective is skewed precisely because of these experiences?

Absolutely. Each of us develop opinions as a result of our personal experiences.

I know of no training agency that certifies OW divers without teaching them how to plan a dive.

So you're saying that every diver who is certified knows the ins and outs of rip currents, where they should enter and where they should exit? Can identify them accurately? Can project their air consumption for any depth? That sure isn't my experience. Most of the dive planning seems to be, go to a LDS and they provide a DM.

I wouldn't say they don't have a clue. I would say they are largely unskilled and need to be right where they are -- on a charter diving under the supervision of DM's and skilled operators rather than out diving by themselves. I'll refer you again to the recent blog in Undercurrents -- at least one experienced vacation dive charter operator did't see the injuries you seem to expect.

The divers to which I refer are OW and Advanced divers not requiring supervision. I was not a "vacation" charter operator (operating out of Vancouver).

If the scuba community really desires to see better training, then there are only a few ways to proceed:

* Engage the government to regulate training requirements in terms of course content, length and evaluation criteria.
* Return to a club system and get the money out of the process entirely.

I really don't expect to see many instructors following the second option, and I very much doubt people want the first.

The first has already started to happen. The province of Quebec instigated a government certification as a result of the high number of diving fatalities which were caused by an increasing lack of proper instruction.

I would be fine with the second point; I currently teach for free in a club setting. Many Instructors may not like this, as it will affect the bottom line. Again it comes down to money. I don't know many Instructors who feel that they couldn't do a better job, if they had more time to provide additional training. If they felt otherwise, they are not much of an Instructor.

gypsyjim

November 30th, 2009, 02:08 PM

Yes, training can always be increased. The philosophy has changed from becoming certified and being competent to be a member of a buddy team, diving independent from a DM or Instructor; to requiring someone to take you by the hand and not being competent to rescue your buddy if this is required (that's the DM's job). I just don't see the current formula to be the correct one.

So you're saying that every diver who is certified knows the ins and outs of rip currents, where they should enter and where they should exit? Can identify them accurately? Can project their air consumption for any depth? That sure isn't my experience. Most of the dive planning seems to be, go to a LDS and they provide a DM.

The divers to which I refer are OW and Advanced divers not requiring supervision. I was not a "vacation" charter operator (operating out of Vancouver).

The first has already started to happen. The province of Quebec instigated a government certification as a result of the high number of diving fatalities which were caused by an increasing lack of proper instruction.

I would be fine with the second point; I currently teach for free in a club setting. Many Instructors may not like this, as it will affect the bottom line. Again it comes down to money. I don't know many Instructors who feel that they couldn't do a better job, if they had more time to provide additional training. If they felt otherwise, they are not much of an Instructor.

Yes, I have to agree that the current training formula has room for major improvement.

Training has certainly been dumbed down since my Y cert in 1970, but the entire sport has grown and changed a whole lot since those days, too, as has the type of person seeking such training. A large portion of today's new dive customer would be scared away from the sport if they had to spend weeks in class room, not to mention the cost such a class would entail today. Like it or not financial cost, benefits, rewards, etc, as well as convenience to the potential customer, all have a bearing on what training methods will prosper and survive.

Another factor is that there are so many different types of diving included in sport diving, that it would be difficult indeed to train every new diver in every skill they might someday need. A student here in upstate New York learning and diving in fw lakes isn't going to really learn about rip tide entires, etc, in depth, nor all the skills required of say a new diver training and diving in high altitudes. Navigation kills learned in clear warm Caribbean waters will need to be improved threw experience, and hopefully mentoring by an experienced buddy, instructor, or DM, when that new diver encounters near zero viz diving for the first time.

If you can teach a new diver to recognize what they don't know enough about, and seek further training or guidence before they risk themselves or others, I think THAT would be some of the best training you coud offer, since you'll never be able to teach every student everything they need to know someday in every situation, today.

DCBC

November 30th, 2009, 02:39 PM

Yes, I have to agree that the current training formula has room for major improvement. ...If you can teach a new diver to recognize what they don't know enough about, and seek further training or guidence before they risk themselves or others, I think THAT would be some of the best training you coud offer, since you'll never be able to teach every student everything they need to know someday in every situation, today.

I agree with what you're saying. I wouldn't expect to teach a diver everything they would need to know in every situation, but I think that a certified OW diver should be able to:

- swim and be comfortable in the water ("I'm nervous around the water; I don't swim very well);
- put on a BC properly (not backwards);
- be aware of his buddy (Where's your Buddy? "I think I had one when I started");
- not be over-weighted;
- be able to reasonably maintain his depth; and
- not to run out of air during a dive and require assistance on the surface.

I also expect:

- not to have to pull divers along the surface to get to the boat;
- them to be competent to look after their decompression profile;
- them to be able to do a pre-dive inspection ("I just realized, I have no pressure in my tank!" Your computer battery is dead. "Oh I thought something was wrong." The guys standing on the stern waiting to be inspected before entry).

Throw me a bone here!! Sorry, I cannot help but laugh... :-)

Kingpatzer

November 30th, 2009, 04:16 PM

. . .I think that a certified OW diver should be able to:

- swim and be comfortable in the water ("I'm nervous around the water; I don't swim very well);

"Comfortable" is relative. I'm pretty sure all certs require some swimming skills however. That some instructors pass people who are not legitimately passing those skill test is really a different issue (and yes, it's something I've seen and am concerned about as well).

- put on a BC properly (not backwards);

PADI - scapegoat of the "diving instruction sucks" crowd - requires the unassisted and unprompted proper donning of gear to pass the course. I can't imagine a course that doesn't.

- be aware of his buddy (Where's your Buddy? "I think I had one when I started");
- not be over-weighted;
- be able to reasonably maintain his depth; and
- not to run out of air during a dive and require assistance on the surface.

All part of minimum standards in every course I've seen.

- not to have to pull divers along the surface to get to the boat;

That's going to happen in rougher waters. The dive population reflects the population at large. Too many potato chips and not enough walking.

- them to be competent to look after their decompression profile;

It's taught and tested.

- them to be able to do a pre-dive inspection ("I just realized, I have no pressure in my tank!" Your computer battery is dead. "Oh I thought something was wrong." The guys standing on the stern waiting to be inspected before entry).

So's that . . .

In other words -- everything you're mentioning is part of the most minimum standards out there.

As you've acknowledged, the frequency divers dive has changed, what happens is that divers only dive a few times a year and those skills and knowledge are lost.

It is not unreasonable, for example, to have someone who hasn't been diving in a year go up to a DM and say "hey, could you help me with my pre-dive check?" Are you suggesting you'd rather have that person NOT seek help?

Nor is it unreasonable for someone who is newly minted as a diver to want to double check their knowledge. And that is true regardless of the level of training in a subject. Brand new graduates from medical schools and newly minted lawyers both work under the close supervision of more experienced practitioners for a reason. And I'd suggest that they have fairly extensive training prior to graduation.

DCBC

November 30th, 2009, 04:37 PM

In other words -- everything you're mentioning is part of the most minimum standards out there.

It might surprise you to hear that I'm not an idiot. Interestingly enough, I'm university educated, am 56 years of age and have three adult sons. Having been instructing diving recreationally and commercially for the past 37 years, I have some idea about learning retention. I also know what is a reasonable question to ask as a new diver and when I answer it and get a "Oh, my Instructor didn't cover that," I have to wonder. Especially if this happens over and over again. It doesn't matter if in-fact the Instructor did or didn't cover it; it's the Instructor's job to teach and for the student to have demonstrable skills and knowledge. Some of these divers came to me the next weekend after certification.

Having been an Instructor with five organizations, I fully understand what many of the standards say. Some of these are in-fact insufficient in my opinion, but that is another issue. When divers are newly certified and don't have a clue, it's not brain surgery to realize that they need more training. I would hope that any experienced Instructor would be quick to pick this up.

If I wouldn't let them out of the pool, what's motivating these Instructors to do so. Ah yes, the certification machine... Not all Instructors succumb to this, but the ones that think a C-card is a "learners permit without firm deliverables" tend to be more, well lets just say "forgiving."

Web Monkey

November 30th, 2009, 04:41 PM

I have to say that, especially in the beginning certifications there is no way the instructor has done any more than "just cracked the door open a bit" for the new diver, with just a couple of days of class room and training dives. That is one reason many good instructors and LDS offer new divers the oportunity to continue diving with their group after issuing the certification; there is no way the new diver is fully trained in a few days of training and a small handful of dives.

Without trying to be too much of a hard-ass, that's not an excuse. If it's not possible to make a competent diver in a couple of days, then the instructor shouldn't sign the card.

Training should absolutely continue after certification, but for new skills, not what should already have been taught. Once the instructor signs the OW card, the diver should absolutely be capable of diving in conditions similar to or better than training, with nothing but a buddy and the desire to "go diving".

Terry

Web Monkey

November 30th, 2009, 04:52 PM

As you've acknowledged, the frequency divers dive has changed, what happens is that divers only dive a few times a year and those skills and knowledge are lost.

It is not unreasonable, for example, to have someone who hasn't been diving in a year go up to a DM and say "hey, could you help me with my pre-dive check?" Are you suggesting you'd rather have that person NOT seek help?

I would suggest that non-divers take a class that covers all of the required material and last long enough that they actually have a chance to learn everything and practice all the skills until they, and the instructor are both happy (not just until "we're out of time").

After a long break, I would suggest a SCUBA Skills Update class. Just asking the DM to help with a pre-dive check is like asking someone on the plane to check your parachute when the real problem is that you don't remember how or when to open it.

Terry

Kingpatzer

November 30th, 2009, 05:27 PM

It might surprise you to hear that I'm not an idiot. Interestingly enough, I'm university educated, am 56 years of age and have three adult sons. Having been instructing diving recreationally and commercially for the past 37 years, I have some idea about learning retention.

I have not once questioned your qualifications, intelligence or education. It might surprise you to remove the chip from your shoulder and read what I wrote. With your university education I'm sure you've opened one or two peer-reviewed journals and noted that highly educated people can have vociferous, even hostile disagreements with each other without once contending that the disagreement is based on intelligence, training, competency or anything other than matters of interpretation of available information.

I also know what is a reasonable question to ask as a new diver and when I answer it and get a "Oh, my Instructor didn't cover that," I have to wonder.

Why? Similar responses are very common among people who have failed to retain information. Most people both over-estimate their own competence and deflect responsibility.

Especially if this happens over and over again. It doesn't matter if in-fact the Instructor did or didn't cover it; it's the Instructor's job to teach and for the student to have demonstrable skills and knowledge. Some of these divers came to me the next weekend after certification.

I have not disputed the existence of poor instructors. Nor have I defended the rise of a certification industry that rests on top of the diving world. In fact I've been critical of said industry because it encourages and rewards the skirting of standards. But that is not an indictment of the standards per se, and can not be used as a blanket condemnation of training as a whole unless you can demonstrate that what you're seeing is normative.

It would be interesting to know how many of those you deem incompetent to your liking are infrequent divers relatively removed from their training compared to those who are newly trained. It would also be interesting to know something about the geographic regions they come from, and even the specific shops. Lastly it would be interest to know how many instructors with significant experience likewise feel that said divers are inadequately skilled. Of course, such data is likely not available, and thus we are relying on anecdotal evidence. And as the old saw goes, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Having been an Instructor with five organizations, I fully understand what many of the standards say. Some of these are in-fact insufficient in my opinion, but that is another issue. When divers are newly certified and don't have a clue, it's not brain surgery to realize that they need more training. I would hope that any experienced Instructor would be quick to pick this up.

It's also not brain surgery to realize that it is very possible for students to pass relatively stringent performance requirements and then quickly loose those abilities. That is what gave rise to the concept of just-in-time training. Even a short break between demonstration of skills and their actual use can significantly effect retention. And that is a phenomenon that increases with age. Since the diver population is getting older, it is not unexpected to see that manifesting itself.

But we ultimately come back to this: what is the level of risk the participants and industry is capable of bearing?

If I wouldn't let them out of the pool, what's motivating these Instructors to do so. Ah yes, the certification machine... Not all Instructors succumb to this, but the ones that think a C-card is a "learners permit without firm deliverables" tend to be more, well lets just say "forgiving."

I would suggest, though only through my own anecdotal observation, that this is far more common in two categories of shops, not instructors:

* those businesses who have single contact with divers -- primarily resorts and cruise ships

* those dive shops who have very little local diving and thus very little revenue from equipment sales, additional training, and servicing of gear.

Certainly instructors are the one's signing the cards. But the reality is that for the most part they wouldn't be instructing without the shop support, so it is the shop, not the instructor setting the rules. And for those instructors who are also the shop owners, cognitive dissonance tends to resolve in the direction of self interest.

I am not in disagreement with you that there are a lot of bad instructors out there. Nor am I in disagreement that there are divers who's skills leave something to be desired.

Where I disagree with you is that those insufficiency at the rates they occur now are cause for real concern across the diving community as a whole. The available accident data that I've seen strongly suggests that this simply isn't the case in terms of relative risk compared to many other activities where training is required or at least strongly suggested.

Kingpatzer

November 30th, 2009, 05:28 PM

After a long break, I would suggest a SCUBA Skills Update class

That's certainly something that PADI strongly recommends. But diver's do not tend to take advantage of that class offering.

gypsyjim

November 30th, 2009, 07:07 PM

I agree with what you're saying. I wouldn't expect to teach a diver everything they would need to know in every situation, but I think that a certified OW diver should be able to:

- swim and be comfortable in the water ("I'm nervous around the water; I don't swim very well);
- put on a BC properly (not backwards);
- be aware of his buddy (Where's your Buddy? "I think I had one when I started");
- not be over-weighted;
- be able to reasonably maintain his depth; and
- not to run out of air during a dive and require assistance on the surface.

I also expect:

- not to have to pull divers along the surface to get to the boat;
- them to be competent to look after their decompression profile;
- them to be able to do a pre-dive inspection ("I just realized, I have no pressure in my tank!" Your computer battery is dead. "Oh I thought something was wrong." The guys standing on the stern waiting to be inspected before entry).

Throw me a bone here!! Sorry, I cannot help but laugh... :-)

:rofl3: You got me there. Something went terribly wrong on the certification end of things there!!! :shakehead: :rofl3: :rofl3:

Without trying to be too much of a hard-ass, that's not an excuse. If it's not possible to make a competent diver in a couple of days, then the instructor shouldn't sign the card.

Training should absolutely continue after certification, but for new skills, not what should already have been taught. Once the instructor signs the OW card, the diver should absolutely be capable of diving in conditions similar to or better than training, with nothing but a buddy and the desire to "go diving".

Terry

I think I was saying something quite similar, but in a different way.

I would suggest that non-divers take a class that covers all of the required material and last long enough that they actually have a chance to learn everything and practice all the skills until they, and the instructor are both happy (not just until "we're out of time").

After a long break, I would suggest a SCUBA Skills Update class. Just asking the DM to help with a pre-dive check is like asking someone on the plane to check your parachute when the real problem is that you don't remember how or when to open it.

Terry

To this I also agree, but enforcement becomes difficult.

Look guys, I am not saying that training is never low quality, some of it certainly is, or that training programs currently have no room for improvement, again they certainly could be improved. All I am saying is that the OW (or even AOW) certification is just the first step. The beginning certifications are building blocks toward a more complete diver, and teaching the new diver to recognize what they do not yet know, and where to find additional expertise and/or training would be highly beneficial to that new diver. Not the deliberate "un-bundling" of skill sets to maximize profits we see a lot of, but teaching the awareness of the need to continue to learn and expand the skill base after receiving a "Card".

TSandM

November 30th, 2009, 08:39 PM

Not to sidetrack this (which probably isn't possible, because bemoaning the state of diver training is one of our favorite pastimes here) but I'd like to echo the OPs thoughts about struggle. I keep the journal of my open water class in my sig line here because I think it's important that people know that not everyone takes to diving like a fish to water. Some of us flounder and struggle and make even egregious mistakes and take horrendous amounts of time to master simple skills.

I got my full cave last week, which simply says that perserverence and determination will get you where you want to go in SPITE of a lack of talent. Diving can be learned, although there are times when I wasn't really sure that was true :)

Thalassamania

November 30th, 2009, 11:43 PM

I agree with what you're saying. I wouldn't expect to teach a diver everything they would need to know in every situation, but I think that a certified OW diver should be able to: ...You're missing basic survival skills, mask clear, reg recovery, etc.

... It's taught and tested.Evidently it is not taught well enough or tested rigorously enough to assure that people can actually do the skills and retain the knowledge.

I would suggest that non-divers take a class that covers all of the required material and last long enough that they actually have a chance to learn everything and practice all the skills until they, and the instructor are both happy (not just until "we're out of time").

After a long break, I would suggest a SCUBA Skills Update class. Just asking the DM to help with a pre-dive check is like asking someone on the plane to check your parachute when the real problem is that you don't remember how or when to open it.

TerryIf people had more complete and rigorous training it would take longer for the skills to deteriorate and the knowledge to be forgotten. How to best prepare for diving after a layoff is topic that we specifically cover.

Kingpatzer

December 1st, 2009, 12:25 AM

Evidently it is not taught well enough or tested rigorously enough to assure that people can actually do the skills and retain the knowledge.

Very few things are.

There are things I spent years studying that I can barely recall these days, simply because of disuse.

Given the infrequent nature of many recreational divers' scuba trips I think it's fair to question if there would be better retention after a year between a 4 day course and a two week on. I honestly suspect that across a population the difference in retained information would be rather small.

People don't retain information they don't use regularly. And information is usually retained only so long as it's useful. So when the typical person is taking a course, they can recite everything they need to know in order to pass the course. But ask them about it 6 months later and they'll simply not recall much at all.

And that's not just within the realm of short course work such as a scuba course. Take a straight 'A' college student and give them a final exam for a course they aced a 6 months ago (and which they did not take a follow up course that covered similar material) and they will do horribly.

People will learn and retain information pertinent to diving by diving frequently. Because most divers do not dive frequently, they don't retain information. Changing training standards won't change the way people's brains work.

December 1st, 2009, 12:51 AM

There is no doubt that to be a frequent, regular diver someone coming out of OW needs more training.

This might be especially true of tropical destinations where the diving is easier and divers are really pushed through but it depends on the individual. I realize that simply diving is training, and the best training around, but the need to go right into "advanced" or what not is really over rated. Take time and go diving with an experienced buddy that knows the local area. I was able to find good buddies and if anyone new in southern/central CA needs a buddy I'd be happy to dive with you. Personally I had right around 100 dives before I took advanced, and the only reason I took it was because it was free and I needed it as the first stepping stone in the hierarchy. If you feel comfortable, I'd get atleast 15 dives before I took advanced so you can learn a little on your own and then really get the specific help you need from the course. This should make the course more rewarding and you might get more out of it!

December 1st, 2009, 12:56 AM

Take a straight 'A' college student and give them a final exam for a course they aced a 6 months ago (and which they did not take a follow up course that covered similar material) and they will do horribly.

Changing training standards won't change the way people's brains work.

Nailed it, couldn't agree more! Especially about the whole college thing because I'm in that boat right now.

DCBC

December 1st, 2009, 06:43 AM

It might surprise you to remove the chip from your shoulder and read what I wrote.

No chip, just a bit of dandruff. :-)

Why? Similar responses are very common among people who have failed to retain information. Most people both over-estimate their own competence and deflect responsibility.

In this case, it is the Instructors who over-estimate the competence of their students and certify them anyway.

I have not disputed the existence of poor instructors. Nor have I defended the rise of a certification industry that rests on top of the diving world. In fact I've been critical of said industry because it encourages and rewards the skirting of standards. But that is not an indictment of the standards per se, and can not be used as a blanket condemnation of training as a whole unless you can demonstrate that what you're seeing is normative.

I was not being critical of all training. I simply voiced my opinion based on what I have observed first-hand. You may not agree, but you cannot discount my observations as invalid.

Why do you believe that the industry "encourages and rewards the skirting of standards?" I agree with you, but am interested in your observations.

It would be interesting to know how many of those you deem incompetent to your liking are infrequent divers relatively removed from their training compared to those who are newly trained. It would also be interesting to know something about the geographic regions they come from, and even the specific shops.

The majority of the divers in this category were newly certified (within two years). In speaking with them, many wanted to take an advanced program and wanted to build dive-time.

I have had occasion to retrain some of the divers that have come to me for further training. In one case it was a PADI Instructor who wanted employment. I also have failed several Instructors who have wanted to crossover to NAUI, ACUC, CMAS because they didn't meet the standard. Some of these enrolled in an Instructor Training Course I offered and I prepared them for this in other areas beforehand. I've been at this for quite awhile and have seen a definite decline of competence over the years. It's nothing new; standards get lowered, skills (like buddy breathing) get dropped from the curriculum and the circle turns.

But we ultimately come back to this: what is the level of risk the participants and industry is capable of bearing?

The industry sees dollar signs. The participants don't know what they don't know.

I am not in disagreement with you that there are a lot of bad instructors out there. Nor am I in disagreement that there are divers who's skills leave something to be desired.

Agreed. These same bad instructors generate bad divers; nothing surprising about that.

Where I disagree with you is that those insufficiency at the rates they occur now are cause for real concern across the diving community as a whole. The available accident data that I've seen strongly suggests that this simply isn't the case in terms of relative risk compared to many other activities where training is required or at least strongly suggested.

I completely understand your point of view and appreciate it. Perhaps I've been exposed to it from a different perspective. It also may be that I'm more passionate about what I do as a diving professional than someone who dives for a hobby looking at the industry from the outside (no insult intended). We do however, hold different opinions. I'm sure there are diving professionals who will disagree with my assessment and other like Thal that have been around long enough to be able to see the difference.

Thanks for the conversation.

Dhboner

December 1st, 2009, 10:46 AM

I was originally certified in 1971 and dived regularly for many years after that before various life changes saw me move on to other things. This past summer both my sons (21 and 24) got certified through PADI. One of my sons needed his C-card to take part in a research project in the Bahamas for University. They both wanted me to come diving with them so I took the PADI refresher course and I've been diving with them pretty much every weekend since.

Every dive we do, regardless of the purpose, ends up having a training element. Whether it's practicing a safety stop or simulating an out of air situation we always add a training drill to every dive. My point is that (in my opinion) you can mitigate risk by ensuring that certain skills become second nature. Someone who dives a couple of times a year could not possibly get to that point and I would consider them ill-prepared to dive (I wouldn't want to dive with someone whose experience is limited to a trip down south every year or so).

Having fun and reviewing training are not mutually exclusive. In fact I enjoy diving so much more with the knowledge that I have preared myself to competently react to most emergencies. You don't get that confidence from a C-card, you get it from time in the water and practice. I know I am preaching to the choir here but I thought I would chime in.

Bob

Saudi-Diver

December 1st, 2009, 11:32 AM

DCBC

December 1st, 2009, 11:48 AM

I am in a bit of a lack of experience loop, I only get to dive my drysuit about 10 times a year because I work in Saudi Arabia. My first couple of dives back in Scottish waters are a relearning experience, I stay shallow and do drills with my ever so patient buddy. By about dive trip 3 I am back to being confident in my drysuit. I can see how lack of practice leads to lack of motor skills. I doubt if more intense initial drysuit training would have helped. If you have had a lay off a couple of months or more you will be rusty. I would love to dive my drysuit a lot more.

There's a difference from tuning-up your skills and never having the skills in the first-place. You know what you need to accomplish. A poorly trained "certified diver," thinks he knows what he doesn't.

More people are killed by what they don't know, than what they do. If you know about a problem, you can plan to avoid it in most circumstances.

higrob24

December 1st, 2009, 12:06 PM

Hey. I think I'm one of the divers that you are talking about. Ie only dives on holiday

I passed my Open water and I've not been again, sadly for 5yrs.
I've decided I want to take up diving again.
So I'm going back to learn with a refresher course and after that the AOW hopefully but if I have to i'll do the OW again.

Even though I could go off and join any Dive vaction after this or even now. I wont
Because like you I dont believe I have all the skills yet. I have some and more I need to learn.
Sadly I can only dive once a year. Really dont fancy doing cold murky UK waters.( May be when I get better) So my next years dive will once again be a padi course instead of a dive vaction of a boat.

Eventually I will get skills so I will be able to dive with a buddy in an an organised dive, but right now I certinaly dont think I'm qulified just because I have my OW.

It not really the fault of the course, but the mindset of the people that have taken them, that makes them believe they are ready to dive anywhere with anybody.

Thalassamania

December 1st, 2009, 01:34 PM

Very few things are.

There are things I spent years studying that I can barely recall these days, simply because of disuse.
I guess I'm lucky that way, I don't seem to lose that much over time.

Given the infrequent nature of many recreational divers' scuba trips I think it's fair to question if there would be better retention after a year between a 4 day course and a two week on. I honestly suspect that across a population the difference in retained information would be rather small.
I don't know what the boundary is. I know that there is little retention for a two day to two week course, but that retention is rather good for a semester course. Just were the change occurs in between is open to debate.

People don't retain information they don't use regularly. And information is usually retained only so long as it's useful. So when the typical person is taking a course, they can recite everything they need to know in order to pass the course. But ask them about it 6 months later and they'll simply not recall much at all.
That is, I feel, a failure for both the person and the course.

And that's not just within the realm of short course work such as a scuba course. Take a straight 'A' college student and give them a final exam for a course they aced a 6 months ago (and which they did not take a follow up course that covered similar material) and they will do horribly.
That's not been my experience, can you provide a reference?

People will learn and retain information pertinent to diving by diving frequently. Because most divers do not dive frequently, they don't retain information. Changing training standards won't change the way people's brains work.Retention has to do with the way in which information is moved from short term memory to long term memory. This is an exploding field at the moment and from what little I've read (so far) there seems to be much more to it than simply a question of recently and repetition.

In any case I oppose the idea of calling a certification a "learner's permit." A learner's permit allows a new driver to drive a car under optimum conditions with a licensed driver sitting next to them. I would be good to have such a construct for diving, I been asking for the industry to come up with such a card for over three decades. But a certification card, as it is currently constructed, means that someone should be able to dive under conditions similar to those of their training with a SIMILARLY skilled buddy, that's not a learner's permit.

gypsyjim

December 1st, 2009, 02:01 PM

a certification card, as it is currently constructed, means that someone should be able to dive under conditions similar to those of their training with a SIMILARLY skilled buddy, that's not a learner's permit.

True, BUT hopefully the new diver has learned that the card marks not the end of their training needs, but a beginning step in mastering the skills they have been aquiring.

We have a great team of teachers at a local college that teaches novices to ride motorcycles, start to finnish, in a very good two day course, even allowing them to skip the state road test because of the recognized quality of the instruction. Students are all still cautioned that they are only beginning, and that it will take years of actual experience to become really good riders, and even let them know there is a lot more to learn, even advanced training available, after they have some real road miles under them (experience).

Thalassamania

December 1st, 2009, 05:56 PM

That's very different, in content and approach than a "learner's permit."

Kingpatzer

December 2nd, 2009, 11:03 AM

Why do you believe that the industry "encourages and rewards the skirting of standards?" I agree with you, but am interested in your observations.

I think the obvious division between the dive shops, gear providers, divers at large and the certification companies produces an economic climate where there is an odd and unhealthy co-dependence between groups with very different goals. Dive shops need certification agency backing in order to be seen as credible to the public. A "PADI 5-Star Dive Shop" means very little as it relates to quality of instruction, services provided, or anything else. But it matters a great deal when advertising to non-divers. So in order to gain those sorts of accolades, a dive shop is willing to do quite a bit, as it is a market advantage to the dive shop as a business.

On the certification agency side of the fence, the agencies themselves have no direct relationship with the dive community. They are an odd combination of accrediting agency and publishing company. They exist as a business by selling training books and certification cards. They do not provide the training directly, but merely accredit others to do so. Since their principal income is derived from the sale of training materials, it follows that they are interested in having as many people taking training as they can achieve.

So from the certification agency, whose credibility in terms of training content is shielded by the fact that they merely provide the standards and do not enforce them, there is no down-side to lowering of requirements for the students provided that those requirements are not so low as to create sufficient safety hazards that might deter customers. Moreover, as a publishing house, there is every incentive to create as many classes as possible, so when it is viable to break up training into smaller and smaller discrete segments so as to justify more and more texts, they are going to do so.

The dive shops, whose income from equipment sales is dropping all the time, and who need the certification agency backing to be perceived as credible, are not in a position to oppose these business decisions by the agencies. Because the dive shops income is driven primarily by initial gear sales -- the mask, fins and snorkel required for the training courses -- and the training courses themselves. they are placed in a position where gathering more students is a primary activity.

But it doesn't stop there. Since the certification agency is interested in selling books and cards, and hence making courses shorter, the dive shops are being forced to compete not merely on the initial course sales but on follow up courses as well. Therefore it is in the dive shops' best interests to pass as many divers through the initial course so as to be able to steer the graduates into follow up courses. After all, the only way to continue to generate income from those divers in this day of internet equipment sales is to get them into a course program and keep them there.

While consciences instructors are not going to wish to be pulled down a path of lowering performance expectations for their students, market pressures will force such behaviors. As dive owners and full-time instructors have their livelihoods tied up in this business they are given two basic choices. Convince themselves that the certification agency's statements are valid and act accordingly or stand against the agency claims.

Standing against the claims, however, will shorten the business life of any dive shop taking such a stance. Particularly in more heavily contested market spaces. The population is only going to support so many dive stores in any given area, and the one's that survive, let alone thrive, will be the one's who can generate the most money to pay for higher levels of advertising.

DCBC

December 2nd, 2009, 11:39 AM

So from the certification agency, whose credibility in terms of training content is shielded by the fact that they merely provide the standards and do not enforce them, there is no down-side to lowering of requirements for the students provided that those requirements are not so low as to create sufficient safety hazards that might deter customers. Moreover, as a publishing house, there is every incentive to create as many classes as possible, so when it is viable to break up training into smaller and smaller discrete segments so as to justify more and more texts, they are going to do so.

Well put King. It's along the line of something of something I posted on the PADI vs. NAUI thread (http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/q-scuba-certification-agencies/33583-padi-vs-naui.html) surrounding how the diving certification minimum standards have affected the industry.

As the statistical values of diver injuries are largely unknown, it's hard to say how far the training standards will drop before they deter customers. Even if the accident rate was high enough to be unacceptable, this may not be communicated and therefore not perceived by the public.

It seems that government regulation may be in the cards in the future. This has already taken place in Quebec as a result of too many diver deaths that have been attributed to inadequate basic diver training. If it ever does happen, it will be difficult for the certification agencies to say they didn't see it coming. :-)