Which agency publishes the best manuals?

[KevinNM]

I found that while the GUE materials are extremely thorough, they need updating. For precise execution of every skill though, the GUE Standard Operating Procedures manual is updated as needed and gives you step-by-step procedures for every major skill. I found that extremely helpful.

Most GUE class material is designed to support a power point presentation by an instructor, not as a traditional manual. It is effective in a classroom with an instructor, but not necessarily very helpful reading it at home without having gone through the class.

The SOP and Valve manuals are very, very nice.

 

[Subcooled]

I have read both PADI and NAUI recreational diving manuals.I do not like the PADI manuals. I get the feeling that I am treated like a child whereas the NAUI manuals are written for adults. Colour + pictures + quizzes is not the same as lots of quality information. I can learn without hand holding.

Some of the best books have been written by individuals, not by agencies.

 

[CaptainHornblower]

IMO nothing I've seen comes close to being as good as the NOAA dive manual. It's an 8 1/2 by 11 hardback that must weigh close to 5 lbs and has 4 or 5 hundred pages. My understanding is that NOAA got into diving as part of the astronaut training program. They train for weightlessness by working underwater. No agency book can even come close.

 

[DevonDiver]

I think what people are missing is that a manual isn't a stand-alone document. It's written and designed to supplement a specific course in a specific way. That course delivers other knowledge via the instructor.

As an instructor, my attitude to course manuals is that they need deliver only a baseline of knowledge prior to my instruction on the course. I expand significantly on that baseline. That's what the instructor is for.... personal expertise and delivering knowledge derived from that.

What I consider a 'bad' manual is one which undermines my subsequent teaching. That can be through incorrect or less than optimal information, bad illustrations (poor role-modelling) or it's just so boring and irrelevant that it switches the student off.

Most of the 'bad' manuals that I see are devoted to specialty/specialist diving activities. They suffer from a lack of specialist expertise from the author/s. Some become 'bad' because they are not updated - practices, protocols and approaches move forwards, but the manual doesn't.

The best manuals support and encourage further teaching by the instructor. They empower the instructor to deliver content relevant to their individual students. When looking at manuals in relation to training courses, sometimes less is more.

 

[Tracy]

I think what people are missing is that a manual isn't a stand-alone document. It's written and designed to supplement a specific course in a specific way. That course delivers other knowledge via the instructor.

As an instructor, my attitude to course manuals is that they need deliver only a baseline of knowledge prior to my instruction on the course. I expand significantly on that baseline. That's what the instructor is for.... personal expertise and delivering knowledge derived from that.

What I consider a 'bad' manual is one which undermines my subsequent teaching. That can be through incorrect or less than optimal information, bad illustrations (poor role-modelling) or it's just so boring and irrelevant that it switches the student off.

Most of the 'bad' manuals that I see are devoted to specialty/specialist diving activities. They suffer from a lack of specialist expertise from the author/s. Some become 'bad' because they are not updated - practices, protocols and approaches move forwards, but the manual doesn't.

The best manuals support and encourage further teaching by the instructor. They empower the instructor to deliver content relevant to their individual students. When looking at manuals in relation to training courses, sometimes less is more.

While I can appreciate your viewpoint as an instructor. As someone who has taken some advanced technical training from well respected instructors. I would prefer the manual that leaves nothing up to the instructor, as that has been what I have received from instructors thus far.

 

[DevonDiver]

Unless you're training through a highly standardised agency like GUE, the more detail in a manual only serves to constrict the instructor (or contradict them).

Manuals, especially in tech diving, get out of date relatively quickly. Again, more details means more issues with keeping info 'alive', relevant and current.

Processes, procedures and equipment demands can vary depending on the region, conditions and local practices.

That's what you choose an instructor for. So why limit teaching based on a document that has to retain applicability to a global audience?