Remember, YOU are the instructor who is teaching in YOUR local waters and having the basic open water student demonstrate those items I listed (which as I stated is NOT an exhaustive list within "PADI Land").
As we both know, in "PADI Land" what an Instructor can teach (and expect the student to learn as a requirement for certification) is
restricted to the PADI course outline. Like NAUI, it has been designed for a warm water diver in ideal conditions. One Agency allows the Instructor to add to the course content (and make the added material required for certification) while the other Agency does not. The 'Standards' of PADI and the 'Minimum Standards' of NAUI are both insufficient to safely dive in all locations where the student is taught.
It is true that sub-surface diver recovery is listed but it is also true that no one, not even Thal, has stated such a "skill" is actually relevant to the basic open water diver. You've even stated that in your vast experience, you've only been involved in 3 (count them 3) such situations and at least one of them was during a technical dive (you, as I recall, stated you were on a 'breather). Come on, this IS basic open water training for crying out loud.
I believe that sub-surface rescue is a requirement for certification. I'm sure that most Physicians would agree that a medical emergency can occur to anyone, at any given time. The "Buddy" is tasked with the safety of his diving partner. Isn't that the foundation of the Buddy System? Why is it that you feel that a newly certified Diver shouldn't be prepared?
You teach AGE don't you? How many Divers that you've been in the water with have experienced AGE? It can happen, that's why it's taught (for the same reason why I teach sub-surface rescue), regardless of the number of times that I've witnessed the need for it. You train for the eventuality. Personally, I've seen it often enough to know that I want my Buddy to have this skill-set as a needed requirement.
You state that what was omitted was "strong watermanship" -- but what IS "strong watermanship?" In your local circumstances, would not doing all of the various surface skills "comfortably, reliably and repeatedly in the manner of an open water diver" show "strong watermanship?" If not, what more is needed?
I don't believe that it's ethical to take a person's money, s/he passes a minimal water evaluation (non-swimmer?) and then put them into the North Atlantic. This is a recipe for disaster in my opinion and something that I don't want anything to do with. They have to prove to me that they have a high degree of in-water competence; which can form a foundation on which to build.
I agree with you that there is no specific gas management planning at the Open Water level but there IS dive planning and it is a requirement for the student to show that he can "comfortably, reliably and repeatedly" create the dive plan for the dives he is about to do. There is absolutely nothing which prohibits you, as the instructor, from including the basics of air consumption planning (but, in fact, other than doing wild-a$$-guessing of consumption rates for the brand new open water diver, I really don't know how valuable such a pre-dive exercise is -- OTOH, I do know how valuable it is as a post-dive exercise).
There is no "wild-a$$-guessing." The student calculates his surface gas consumption rate in psi per minute and logs it on every dive. He can later check what this rate has been on a dive similar to the dive he is about to make, for the planned depth of the next dive. What I have experienced, is other divers (and Instructors) have run out of gas because they had no idea how much gas they would consume. The diver should be aware of the dive being attempted and be aware of the restrictions (decompression, gas availability, etc.) before getting wet. This is basic, required knowledge in my view and NO Diver should be certified without it (regardless of where they were trained).
DCBC, I know you are my "elder" when it comes to teaching (but evidently not to chronology or when we were first trained) and I, in fact, agree with much of your concerns about the standards that are accepted by many instructors, but it isn't the standards as they are written, at least within "PADI Land." The ONLY standard upon which you seem to focus is the sub-surface recovery which you (and who knows how many others out there) seem to think is some sort of holy grail (which it isn't). It IS an interesting task loading exercise but, I submit there are many other much more relevant ones to be used (such as merely requiring the basic open water student to do 2 foot ascents/descents on a line, no touching allowed, with 15 second stops AND doing simple skills like mask clearing and signalling PSI).
Peter, I believe in training the diver for the conditions. Before taking the diver to open-water, I develop confidence through blackout drills, buddy breathing, doff/don, station breathing, mild harassment, etc. If it can reasonably happen in OW, it's already happened to them in the pool (in more controlled conditions). So sub-surface rescue isn't the only part of the training course that's different.
I ask again, IF the student can do all of the afore mentioned skills, reliably, comfortably and repeatedly while in conditions that consist of "Rocky shoreline, surf, currents, waves, at times poor visibility, very cold water (often 29-34 degree F) and the largest tidal exchanges on the planet." wouldn't that person be OK to go diving in those same or better conditions?
Once the person has been properly prepared (as previously described), they are ready to go to OW (and not before). This includes a pool check-out in full gear (suit included) and a dry dive in the Chamber (to experience Narcosis). There are few surprises when they get to OW and that's only reasonable.
Peter, I think if you carefully look at why the Standards have changed over the years, you will see that the original recreational course (which resembles mine to a large degree) was changed for financial reasons (and not that there was anything wrong with the type of Divers the 'System' was creating). Diving has become big business and Standards have been focused on what the vacation diver requires at a minimum. This level of training just isn't sufficient in all geographic locations. Why should it be? Most certification agencies Worldwide have recognized this since diving training started. Perhaps you can clarify why you feel that one set of 'Standards' is sufficient for the international diving community.
---------- Post added December 30th, 2012 at 05:21 AM ----------
Oh my god, you were part of that FAQS nonsense?
Yes, unfortunately this is what can occur when what is required for safety is left up to people with their focus on profit.
