Split from: Diver Death in Cayman

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Interesting to know the history behind how we ended up with today's course structure.

It looks like breaking the classes up to keep people coming back for more (and reducing the initial course fee) predates PADI then? If NAUI had OW, OWII, and Advanced rather than just a comprehensive course it seems that PADI was just following in this regard.

How long back does one go to find the days (and which agency?) of one comprehensive class (OW) and that's it?
Hell hath no fury as an unwarranted assumption.

NAUI's program back then was a "comprehensive course" running 40 hours with five dives. Being California based back then NAUI recognized the need for four more leadership led dives (just dives, no skills, no books) and that was Open Water II, Advanced was about 8 dives with lots of book work.
 
Then maybe they should only be allowed to rate their instructor until after they've acquired at least another 60 dives.

Or more, but an excellent plan none the less.:wink:
 
Hell hath no fury as an unwarranted assumption.

NAUI's program back then was a "comprehensive course" running 40 hours with five dives. Being California based back then NAUI recognized the need for four more leadership led dives (just dives, no skills, no books) and that was Open Water II, Advanced was about 8 dives with lots of book work.

No assumptions, just questions.:wink:

When did NAUI change to it's modern structure and why (competition?)?

By the way, I think 4 leadership dives is a great idea and is sorely missing today. It doesn't make sense (to me) to go from class with no actual dives other than skills dives to an environment where you are on your own without at least having a few fun dives with your instructor.
 
Last edited:
Early 1980s was the start of the changes Basic Diver and Advanced Diver where in place and Sports Diver was added. Names were later changed to OW I, OW II and Advanced. I was later contracted (1985) to revise the entire scheme. What we wound up with was:

Open Water I: 40 hrs; 5 dives
Open Water II: 4 dives
Advanced: 40 hours; 8 dives
Master Diver: 40 hours; 8 dives - this was designed to provide the diver with all the skills and knowledge expected of a NAUI Instructor except for the NAUI Organizational stuff and the Teaching Theory and Techniques material.

Rescue was in every class but there was a rescue specialty course and an advanced rescue specialty.

I also redesigned the leadership program, elevating DM above AI, and adding an Instructor Prep Course that was optional.
 
Cave Diver:
The point I was making was that if we can't fix one, how are we going to fix the other?

They are totally unrelated. One (take your pick) can be corrected without touching the other. Personally, I fix the one related to diving by not doing business with agencies that have low standards. If it ever comes to pass (not likely, I agree) that everyone takes that course of action, agencies will raise their standards. I also don't shift blame from the agency (where it belongs) to instructors (who are usually doing the best they know how). The whole "it's the instructor, not the agency" BS is merely blaming instructors for something that is clearly the responsibility of the agency. This helps to hide the guilt and encourage folks to continue doing business with agencies that have low standards.
 
Walter, what would you think about a third party independent testing of scuba divers...like a driver's license? You can take your instruction from any "school" but your ultimate testing for competence is done by an outside body. In that way the agencies & dive shops have someone outside themselves judging the competence of the students instead of the self-serving system we currently have in place where it is in the financial best interest of the shop to care more about selling the "hooked" party the next class/gear/trip instead of caring about making sure they are actually training fully competent divers.
 
Walter, what would you think about a third party independent testing of scuba divers...like a driver's license? You can take your instruction from any "school" but your ultimate testing for competence is done by an outside body. In that way the agencies & dive shops have someone outside themselves judging the competence of the students instead of the self-serving system we currently have in place where it is in the financial best interest of the shop to care more about selling the "hooked" party the next class/gear/trip instead of caring about making sure they are actually training fully competent divers.

It's not so much that the new divers are incompetent (at least not more than would be expected given current training), the problem is that they're new divers and they're being taken to places they shouldn't go.

If dive ops and DMs would simply apply the training limits to certified divers, most of these problems would vanish. I can't even remember a SCUBA-related fatality that occurred within training limits (ie. an OW diver dying in less than 60', in conditions similar to certification).

Terry
 
bwerb:
Walter, what would you think about a third party independent testing of scuba divers...like a driver's license?

I think it's an unnecessary step that will screw up the system worse than it already is without raising the bar at all. Besides, I think agencies have a right to teach poor courses. My only complaint is they aren't forced to be honest about their quality. Consumers have the right to choose the class they want. Fast and cheap? Not a problem. Take more time, make it easier, but costs more? That's also available. Telling them all agencies teach the same thing? That's simply dishonest.

Web Monkey:
It's not so much that the new divers are incompetent (at least not more than would be expected given current training),

Let's see if I understand what you're trying to say (I must admit I'm a tad confused by your statement). I think you said, New divers are not incompetent (well, OK, they are incompetent, but you have to expect them to be incompetent since they've received poor training). Is that what you meant?
 
My only complaint is they aren't forced to be honest about their quality. Consumers have the right to choose the class they want. Fast and cheap? Not a problem. Take more time, make it easier, but costs more? That's also available. Telling them all agencies teach the same thing? That's simply dishonest.

How would you propose to make the differences between agencies teaching methods and curriculum clearer to the uninformed? What sort of reference would you suggest to clearly delineate how one agency is different than another when at this point in time you can (for instance) take a 3 day certification course from PADI or take a several week certification course from PADI...same agency, same certification and yet one is fast & cheap and the other takes more time but costs more. I know that there are agency differences but I'm looking for how you'd restructure the industry to make for a better informed consumer?
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/

Back
Top Bottom