A different twist on an old question

[NetDoc]

Originally Posted by EvenKeel

And he's right; as long as I learn the skills to be safe in the wet, I'd rather learn it from someone whose company I enjoy.

Truer words were never spoken.

[NetDoc]

Originally Posted by EvenKeel

Regarding dive tables and computers...

I've always felt that it's best to know why 12 x 12 = 144 before you learn that you can type it calculator.

Following your reasoning, you obviously feel that unless you can generate your own algorithms and tables, you aren't ready to dive. Right?

Of course not.

Just how much information is needed to dive safely? I have found that most students don't understand how to really use their computers. It makes sense to teach them while they are learning to dive.

[SDiggy]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Following your reasoning, you obviously feel that unless you can generate your own algorithms and tables, you aren't ready to dive. Right?

Of course not.

Just how much information is needed to dive safely? I have found that most students don't understand how to really use their computers. It makes sense to teach them while they are learning to dive.

What I think that the previous poster was saying, and I highly agree with, is that while it is great that a computer can calculate remaining bottom times, etc, it is important to understand the factors that affect the calculations. Overall, understanding these concepts will lead to a safer diver.

That being said, I agree with you about students, or anyone new to diving with computers, should understand how to use them. It would be the same with any new piece of equipment.

[glbtrekker]

Originally Posted by jridg

I agree with the previous post.
However, I will also add that in my experience, at the BASIC level or first cert - NAUI goes a little more in-depth with the science behind it all.

This is what I was looking for. I know that all the agencies will teach the "basics" that will get me started. I'm just the kind of person that would rather know as much as possible about a particular sport versus skipping training that "most will probably never encounter." My concern is that in order to make scuba more appealing to a wider clientele base that some agencies may have made their program "easier" while skipping important training.

For example, I am NOT a good swimmer. More than one length of a standard pool would be a challenge for me. However, I know that some agencies will allow you to pass the test with mask, snorkel and even fins (even though you "swim" a little further). Anyone who can float could pass this test (myself included) but that doesn't mean that a person is reasonably proficient in swimming. I would rather an organization tell me that up front and make me improve my swimming skills first instead of giving me a false sense of security and telling me that I'm okay when I am not.

My fear is that some organizations may have made their programs so "user-friendly" that they are skipping out on crucial training. I also rappel and I know that knowing your equipment and skill level equals the difference between life and death. I'm not willing to forgo any potentiality in exchange for expediency.

Originally Posted by spectrum

The agencies do differentiate themselves in certain ways.

The industry is set-up to bring divers into the sport and I feel often does itself a disservice by setting the bar too low as many times divers really don't have what they need to get off and running.

Some agencies require significant work on watermanship skills. PADI has lead the way on relaxing swim requirements and has removed most non essential skills. This probably contrasts most with SEI (Formerly YSCUBA) Which still emphasizes swimming, skin diving and certain training activities intended do develop skill comfort and problem solving abilities.

AOW is another area with some differentiation. PADI and most others require that you make a series of individual dives that give you a taste of the topics. SSI handles each specialty as a course usually involving several related dives. The number of actual dives you need to make also varies with the agency.

Pete

Thanks! That is exactly what I am looking for. Which agency "requires significant watermanship skills?" Where do NAUI and SSI fall into this equation?

Originally Posted by visibilityunlimited

I can only speak from a standpoint of differences between a couple of different agencies.

SDI is one of the only agencies so far that requires the use of dive computers in all phases of their training. I am almost positive that all others are still using the dive tables.

PADI regarding the dive table, PADI was the first to change the dive tables and to add the Wheel for multi level calculations (takes an hour to learn and 15 minutes to forget how to do it)

It is a very interesting question that you posed and I would like to hear from more divers about it.

Thanks, good information. Altough, I admit like some of the other posters have commented that I would rather learn the tables first.

Originally Posted by NetDoc

For me the differences are as follows:

PADI... abides by the RTSC. Good and solid and how I was first certified.
SDI... all but abandoned tables in favor of computers (It makes a LOT of sense). First to embrace online academics (Also makes a lot of sense)
NAUI... Emphasis on self and buddy rescue from OW and up. Allows me to put a proper emphasis on diving on a computer.

I would think that training a person on both tables and computers would make the most sense. So what if you have to extend the training and or take an additional test...I could easily see real world usage where knowledge of both could be extremely important.

From what I've heard thus far, it seems like NAUI may place a greater emphasis on safety with being more "in-depth" and having an emphasis on rescue. Thanks!

Originally Posted by EvenKeel

Regarding dive tables and computers...

I've always felt that it's best to know why 12 x 12 = 144 before you learn that you can type it calculator. Meaning, I'd rather have the knowledge to make those calculations myself before I rely on a piece of equipment to do it for me. There might be a time on a 130' wreck dive where my computer goes **** up. I want to know that I can figure out my ascent time and safety stops on my own so I don't go **** up on the way up.

EK

I agree! But I think it would be great to learn both.

Thanks for all the responses thus far. Based on what I've heard and experienced (very brief on both) it sounds like PADI may be a little more relaxed on safety issues than some of the other organizations.

Please keep the comments coming...this is helping a lot! After all, I feel that one needs to have confidence in both the instructor and the training materials.

[hudson]

I've been looking into this for a friend and my understanding is there are three options for a more in-depth program: 1- Official News Release! 2- GUE Recreational Diver 1 | Global Underwater Explorers 3- NAUI programs tend to be more in depth than PADI/SDI not only because the instructor has more freedom but also the basic requirements I have briefly seen seem to exceed that of PADI.

[Walter]

Sorry that no one has really answered your questions yet. Some of the answers are facts, others are, by the nature of the question, opinions.

Originally Posted by glbtrekker

Is one program more "in depth" than another?

SEI is the most in depth for beginning classes.

Originally Posted by glbtrekker

Is one program more academically challenging than another?

SEI, by virtue of being more in depth would probably be considered more challenging than others.

Originally Posted by glbtrekker

Is one program more physically challenging than another?

Those programs that have eliminated "unnecessary" (the fact that they are unnecessary is a matter of opinion) skills are more physically challenging than programs like SEI that skill require them. This is because skills are learned over a longer period of time and are broken down into smaller steps making them easier.

Originally Posted by glbtrekker

Does one program require greater swimming abilities than another?

Yes. Some programs require swimming 300 yds, others 200 yds, others allow snorkeling in lieu of swimming and at least one has no distance requirement, but a minimum number of strokes instead.

Originally Posted by glbtrekker

Is one program more safety conscious than another?

This is strictly opinion. I'm not familiar with all programs, but of those with which I am familiar SEI and NAUI are the most safety conscious.

Originally Posted by glbtrekker

Is one program more stringent on testing than another?

Yes, some allow open book exams, others require closed book exams, some require 80% or higher to pass, others have a lower passing grade.

[Walter]

Originally Posted by glbtrekker

Thanks! That is exactly what I am looking for. Which agency "requires significant watermanship skills?" Where do NAUI and SSI fall into this equation?

SSI allows snorkeling in lieu of swimming and NAUI has no distance requirement, but a minimum number of strokes instead. Sounds like you'd be happier with an SEI class. SEI's standards have recently changed and I'm expecting to see the new standards within the week, based on correspondence from headquarters, I'm expecting them to have gone up, not down. Prior to the change, the requirement was to swim 200 yds prior to any in water training and swim 300 yds prior to certification.

[NetDoc]

Walter, it will be good to see the SEI standards to see if this holds true. It seems that you are basing a lot of what you are writing on an unpublished document.

For me, "in depth" would include those rescue skills, and I don't believe SEI has those.

Also, it's important to remember that a NAUI class's standards are determined BY the instructor. You are not getting through my class if you can't swim or tread water. Also, you're not getting through with anything but a frog kick and reasonable trim and buoyancy control. NAUI allows the instructor to set those parameters as they see fit.

For NAUI, the instructor determines just how intense a class can be, and that is often determined by how much the student wants to learn for me. If they want tables, they get tables. If they want simple, they can get simple. Online? I switch them to SDI. They still have to do the rescues and other essential skills.

I find the "standards" argument more elitest than anything. But then, I find a lot of the chest banging about which agency is best to be completely ego driven with very little substance at all. It's my HUMBLE opinion that the instructor makes all the difference. Their style, their abilities, their insight as well as their integrity all play into creating a learning experience that should result in a student getting the type of training they want and need. Why make it harder than it needs to be, UNLESS the student wants it that way.

[EvenKeel]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Following your reasoning, you obviously feel that unless you can generate your own algorithms and tables, you aren't ready to dive. Right?

Of course not.

Just how much information is needed to dive safely? I have found that most students don't understand how to really use their computers. It makes sense to teach them while they are learning to dive.

Well, thank you for taking my statement to the absurd. It's always a good exercise in keeping one's comments honest.

I'm not going to attempt to define the 'average diver' or what is 'safe' for anyone.

Personally, I'm not going to worry too much about my bottom time if I'm diving a reef in 30' of water. However, when I'm planning a dive to a wreck 100+ feet down, I'd rather plan the dive ahead of time and make sure that I knew what my bottom time is and record the depth and time of my safety stops. Four atmospheres is nothing to sneeze at.

It's really all about comfort level. I feel comfortable knowing that I have a back-up plan in anything I do. Of course, there is always "Plan B" which is just wing it...but, I don't want to put myself in that situation.

Should a recreational diver know how to calculate bottom time and ascent time using dive tables? Probably. Should a recreational diver know how to use a dive computer? Absolutely. Should a recreational diver know how to do both? In my opinion, yes.

As the saying goes, your results may differ.

EK

[NetDoc]

Originally Posted by EvenKeel

Well, thank you for taking my statement to the absurd. It's always a good exercise in keeping one's comments honest.

Used responsibly, it does put things into a different perspective.

Originally Posted by EvenKeel

I'm not going to attempt to define the 'average diver' or what is 'safe' for anyone.

I fully agree with your sentiment here.

Originally Posted by EvenKeel

It's really all about comfort level. I feel comfortable knowing that I have a back-up plan in anything I do. Of course, there is always "Plan B" which is just wing it...but, I don't want to put myself in that situation.

Unfortunately, I find that many who claim to rely on tables are indeed, just winging it. Other than Walter, I have yet to see divers pull out their tables on a boat to consult them. I have seen many dive without computers and still they just wing it.

Originally Posted by EvenKeel

Should a recreational diver know how to calculate bottom time and ascent time using dive tables? Probably. Should a recreational diver know how to use a dive computer? Absolutely. Should a recreational diver know how to do both? In my opinion, yes.

As the saying goes, your results may differ.

And there is nothing wrong with our opinions differing. If they were all the same, we would have nothing to discuss.