Is dive certification really necessary?

[Esprise Me]

Those accounts are cherry picked and fictionalized to reinforce the PADI orthodoxy. You'll find out that solo diving is terribly dangerous, for example.

In some cases, the fictionalization is downright absurd.

Well now I'm curious. I can see that the author takes some creative license, e.g. in describing a diver's last thoughts before he died, which we can't possibly know. But mostly they seem like reasonable guesses; can you give me an example of one that was absurd? Of course they don't give real names so there's no way to check for accuracy even as to known facts, though maybe you know which cases some of them were based on.

I don't really understand the comment about solo diving; I've never gotten the impression from reading the column that solo diving is terribly dangerous, just that there are risks that have to be managed, and it's not something beginners should do. And PADI seems to feel the same way, since they offer a course for it now. I'm open to having my mind changed.

 

[BRT]

If you start with an unproven and unprovable assumption that the overwhelming majority of instruction around the world today truly sucks, then you will say firmly that this record of safety is in spite of the terrible instruction, and no one will be able to dissuade you. If it is also your unproven and unprovable assumption that all instruction was wonderful a half century ago, then you will say firmly that the much, much higher fatality rates during that era were in spite of that superior instruction, and no one will be able to dissuade you.

I cited this History of NAUI earlier, written in part by Al Tillman, chief founder of NAUI and previously the director of the Los Angeles County instructional program. In this reflection of the decades of instruction since NAUI's founding, the authors offer the observation that the average student completing an OW course at the time of the writing was at the time of graduation a better diver than the instructors who founded NAUI. Of course, if you start with the assumption that all current instruction sucks, then you will dismiss that observation as well, because nothing will dissuade you.

In buoyancy control, knowledge about gases, it may be possible that the average new diver. In being able to get out of a bad situation, I doubt that. There is a whole bunch to diving that book learning doesn't teach you. My fisherman friend in Mexico, with his thousands or 10's of thousands of dives, was surprised how nice it was to use a BCD and not have to swim all the time. But if things go south, and we have to survive air loss or other emergencies, I'm going to bet on his untrained diving skills.

 

[Dubious]

Going by those columns, at least, it would seem that a lot of people get hurt going beyond their training, but few people get hurt in benign OW conditions due to inadequate training in their OW course.

Is "going beyond their training" an example of inadequate training?

 

[Esprise Me]

Is "going beyond their training" an example of inadequate training?

That's a fair point, which goes back to "how much should OW prepare you for?" A lot of these stories involve people entering caves or shipwrecks without training in those environments, which I would hope we can agree is not a sign that OW courses are inadequate. But what about people who get certified in quarries and then get in trouble with currents or critters or fishing line? My OW training emphasized getting additional training, mentorship, or at least an area orientation before diving in different conditions than I'd trained in. But I'd agree it's a sorry state of affairs if training in southern California couldn't adequately prepare me to dive on a tropical reef.

 

[kelemvor]

I think the direction this thread has taken, and some posters' assertions that the instructional system is broken or compromised, is at odds with the ground truth that recreational diving is a relatively safe activity.

I wouldn't disagree with your assertion that recreational diving is relatively safe. However, there's no way to prove that the safety (or perceived safety) is a result of the current instructional system. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Were divers dropping like flies before it came to be? Maybe. Is the increase in safety due to training? Advances in equipment? Some third thing?

I wouldn't say that the training (as handed down by the agency, depending on which agency) is in its-self bad. Heck it might be downright great. But that doesn't mean it's necessary.

 

[Colliam7]

Just like the tittle asks, is it?

I will join those who say, 'No'.

It is clear that individuals can teach themselves how to dive. There are, in fact, several very well known dive 'professionals' who only gained a formal certification after many years of competent diving, and only then because they wanted to be sure that they didn't provide a 'bad' role model.

The question, as put forward, should NOT be answered on the emotional basis of strong opinions about bad instruction, IF this is really a thought experiment.

Resources to help people understand the basics of scuba diving are abundant, they are readily accessible, and competent, motivated individuals can use them to get to the same point as divers at the time of Open Water certification.

The certification 'process' - the instruction - may expedite learning. In fact, I personally believe it probably does. But, that is true with many endeavors.

Some of the discussion has raised the issue of liability. That is reasonable, but not necessarily as applicable in scuba as it is in flying an airplane, or driving a motor vehicle, as two examples. If I do something stupid underwater and die, the immediate impact on others around me is frankly trivial. (And, yes, I am making that statement while acknowledging the potential risks to others who may have to (attempt to) rescue me, etc. But, in driving a motor vehicle, if I am incompetent, I may well harm other people driving, other people not on the road but off it, I may cause material damage to property, etc. The same is true with flying an airplane.

Now, having answered Eric's question as I have, I don't want my remarks to be interpreted to say that there is no value in the current certification paradigm. It is coupled with training, and 'certification' is a tangible outcome of training. Much scuba training is good, much is valuable. Some is mediocre, some is downright bad. Some is unnecessary. The presence of 'some' mediocre' or 'unnecessary', or downright bad' training is not a reasonable basis for concluding that certification is unnecessary, even if it may have prompted the question. There are other, more logical conclusions to be drawn, instead.

To address a suggestion made at the end of the OP, I see little / no value in an 'independent' certification process, because I don't believe that 'certification' is necessary to begin with. At the same time, the notion of 'mentors' is, to me, very positive. The notion of 'coaches' (I am not saying this to specifically praise UTD, by the way) is also very positive. We have gold coaches, tennis coaches, financial coaches, life coaches. Why not scuba coaches, for those that want coaching, and want to pay for it?

 

[boulderjohn]

In buoyancy control, knowledge about gases, it may be possible that the average new diver. In being able to get out of a bad situation, I doubt that. There is a whole bunch to diving that book learning doesn't teach you. My fisherman friend in Mexico, with his thousands or 10's of thousands of dives, was surprised how nice it was to use a BCD and not have to swim all the time. But if things go south, and we have to survive air loss or other emergencies, I'm going to bet on his untrained diving skills.

I am sure that the people who founded NAUI and led them through those first decades simply don't have your knowledge of the way things were then. They should have contacted you for confirmation before publishing incorrect opinions like that.

 

[boulderjohn]

To address a suggestion made at the end of the OP, I see little / no value in an 'independent' certification process, because I don't believe that 'certification' is necessary to begin with.

It brings us to the interesting consensus of this thread. People seem to have agreed on two points:

1. It is not necessary to have a certification process. Scuba skills are easy enough for people to pick up on their own without any help.
2. Scuba instruction is so uniformly poor that we should have independent verification of instructional quality and expensive monitoring of instructors in order to ensure that OW divers are properly instructed by highly skilled instructors on these vital skills.

As a former professional educator, it reminds me of the two key ideas pushed hard by legislators, and almost invariably the same people believe both ideas.

1. We need to make the teacher certification and evaluation process much more rigorous so that only the best trained teachers are allowed to teach.
2. We need to get rid of cumbersome teacher certification requirements that are preventing people who are currently in other professions but who want to get into education. They will do a better job than trained teachers, because...because...well, how hard is it to teach anyway?

 

[markmud]

It brings us to the interesting consensus of this thread. People seem to have agreed on two points:

1. It is not necessary to have a certification process. Scuba skills are easy enough for people to pick up on their own without any help.
2. Scuba instruction is so uniformly poor that we should have independent verification of instructional quality and expensive monitoring of instructors in order to ensure that OW divers are properly instructed by highly skilled instructors on these vital skills.

As a former professional educator, it reminds me of the two key ideas pushed hard by legislators, and almost invariably the same people believe both ideas.

1. We need to make the teacher certification and evaluation process much more rigorous so that only the best trained teachers are allowed to teach.
2. We need to get rid of cumbersome teacher certification requirements that are preventing people who are currently in other professions but who want to get into education. They will do a better job than trained teachers, because...because...well, how hard is it to teach anyway?

I think I missed something in Coliam's post and with the other posts that tried to answer Eric's questions directly. Where did you get that conclusion? That's not what I wrote nor what I thought. I realize that the thread went down a rabbit trail, but?

When I read your post I thought: He's a little butt-hurt!

I am not trying to start anything, as I am just giving you my opinion.

As always, cheers,
m

 

[2airishuman]

It brings us to the interesting consensus of this thread. People seem to have agreed on two points:

1. It is not necessary to have a certification process. Scuba skills are easy enough for people to pick up on their own without any help.
2. Scuba instruction is so uniformly poor that we should have independent verification of instructional quality and expensive monitoring of instructors in order to ensure that OW divers are properly instructed by highly skilled instructors on these vital skills.

As a former professional educator, it reminds me of the two key ideas pushed hard by legislators, and almost invariably the same people believe both ideas.

1. We need to make the teacher certification and evaluation process much more rigorous so that only the best trained teachers are allowed to teach.
2. We need to get rid of cumbersome teacher certification requirements that are preventing people who are currently in other professions but who want to get into education. They will do a better job than trained teachers, because...because...well, how hard is it to teach anyway?

I am shocked that you left out high-stakes testing.

We could, of course, reduce class sizes and pay instructors a wage high enough that young people no longer avoid the profession on remunerative grounds alone. Might work for scuba and public schools alike.