big PADI mistake

[jonnythan]

MikeFerrara once bubbled...
In this case though even if the instructor does nothing at all the book is pretty clear on how tables are to be used and for that matter computers also. There are a good number of practice problems, they are tested on table use and they must use the tables to plan their check out dives. I don't think there should be any confusion after all that.

I don't know about PADI, but my SSI book is *more* than perfectly clear.

Your bottom time includes all dive time up until you make a DIRECT ascent to the surface, stopping only for a safety stop. Period.

Unless the instructor directly contradicted the book, I see no way a student could feasibly misunderstand this.

BTW means "by the way."

 

[Diver0001]

caveman once bubbled...
Well, I think the crux of the problem is coming out. PADI standards are quite poor, unlike thier marketing materials. Point taken they have things documented, but where PADI fails abismally is in their verification that standards are complied with.

I have plenty of examples I do not want to baor you with, but I have seen some funky things in my time (BTW, I aint an instructor / dive master and never had the inclination to be one. and thus no axes to grind between organizations.)

PADI's standards are not poor. The standards, the setup of the courses and the materials all offer a good instructor excellent tools to work with.

But their quality control is poor.

IN fact, worse than poor. In my view it's completely disfunctional and I'd say that we would be better off without *any* QA system because at least *that* wouldn't be masking the truth with the appearance of something that just doesn't work.

I mean, if an instructor produces a student who doesn't know how to plan a dive with tables and either doesn't realise it or doesn't care then alarm bells should have been going off everywhere.

I think this thread is proof that such things do happen and it's absolutely astonishing that someone can still be confused about this when they're busy with their divemaster.

The sad part (or perhaps better said, the lucky part) is that it's actually relatively difficult to hurt yourself diving so a lot of it goes on and on without the "evidence" floating to the surface (pun intended). I'm sure I'm not unique in wishing that PADI would re-organise to make QA work and to "deal" with bad instructors. That would be good for students, good for PADI and good for the majority of instructors and DM's.

R..

 

[miguel sanz]

BTW I´m certyified , as I said I just passed my DM course.
I´ve never taken the OWD course My first certificate was in 1995 by the spanish federation of subacuatic activities, I was then taught that the bottom time includes all the time from surface until starting of direct ascention to surface, as is also told in the PADI OWD manual. I´ve always dived either with computer or with expirienced divers after good planning of the dives.
It isn´t until my dm course when i´ve started to take care of others dives (others than my buddies).
The first thing I thout was that if that statement was not sufficiently clear, it was the instructors fault, but after asking some of them, and some OWD (with different instructors) I believe the problem is about the system. Either (as some just pointed) the quality control is not good enough, either this question in particular is not highlighted enough (together with this issue, I´ve come to notice that many novel divers, think they´re loosing nitrogen by the fact of been at a lesser deph than the max. deph, probably because of the lack in physiology education). I´m not sure about who is responsable. But I´m very curiuos about this issue, please ask (in a triky way) novel divers (that don´t know thw weel, so about multilevel dives, neither much about diving phisiology) about a dive like the one I discribed and see what you all get.
thanks all. NABADEI

 

[Northeastwrecks]

nt

 

[Charlie99]

miguel sanz once bubbled...
My first certificate was in 1995 by the spanish federation of subacuatic activities, I was then taught that THE BOTTOM TIME INCLUDES ALL THE TIME FROM THE SURFACE UNTIL STARTING OF DIRECT ASCENTION TO SURFACE, AS IS ALSO TOLD IN THE PADI OWD MANUAL.

(capitals added)

In your initial example, you were concerned about divers who go to 28 meters for 15 minutes, then go hang out at 22 meters until 100bar, while not counting the time at 22 meters as part of bottom time.

Do you REALLY think "direct ascention to surface" started when they left 28 meters?

PADI OW book uses the phrase "... continuous ascent to surface" in the definition, and in the rules for using table section uses the phrase "....final ascent to surface or safety stop".

PADI periodically reviews and improves their material, perhaps what is needed is an example problem that is a trick question with a multilevel profile, just to emphasis that max depth and actual bottom time, as defined in the book, are to be used.

Charlie

p.s. I assume Spanish SAC is a CMAS affiliate---- do they recommend new divers do 28 meter dives?

 

[Diver0001]

miguel sanz once bubbled...
<snip>
I´ve always dived either with computer or with expirienced divers after good planning of the dives.
<snip>

I think you put your finger on the main point here.

Like many "new generation" divers you learned to put your faith in the computer (and perhaps your buddies) and never had to learn how to plan dives with the tables.

I was certified in the mid 80's and I dove for about 10 years before I finally broke down and got a computer. For me the point is perfectly obvious and both the materials and the standards seem completely clear. But you never had to apply it in real diving and for you the point isn't obvious at all.

When put that way I understand your point. I see it a lot too -- divers who are lost without a computer.

The question is, are these divers a symptom of a system that's not working, a symptom of bad instructors or a symptom of something else?

Maybe you're right, maybe there is something wrong when you're training tables while knowing full well that 95% of the divers will never use them.

Maybe (doesn't SDI do this?) the solution is to define a computer as mandatory equipment and forego training the tables all together. I know this isn't a popular thought among experienced divers but let's face it, the main point (these days) in training the tables is to get the underlying theory over, isn't it? Maybe PADI (et al) needs to get with the times and update the materials to be computer-centric and find a way to deliver on/offgassing-theory in the context of the computer and demonstrate the tables as a historical curiosity.

In fact maybe you can put table use into a specialty or something... PADI Wheel Diver Specialty with a badge, a series of dives and make it an option for AOW... lol

R..

 

[Walter]

Can't blame PADI for this one, PADI clearly requires this knowledge in its standards.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Diver0001 once bubbled...



Maybe (doesn't SDI do this?) the solution is to define a computer as mandatory equipment and forego training the tables all together. I know this isn't a popular thought among experienced divers but let's face it, the main point (these days) in training the tables is to get the underlying theory over, isn't it? Maybe PADI (et al) needs to get with the times and update the materials to be computer-centric and find a way to deliver on/offgassing-theory in the context of the computer and demonstrate the tables as a historical curiosity.

In fact maybe you can put table use into a specialty or something... PADI Wheel Diver Specialty with a badge, a series of dives and make it an option for AOW... lol

R..

It may be practical but if we're goint follow this line of logic why bother. Let's just tell them that they'll be following a DM and teach them how to follow a DM well. That is what most do. At least that would lower the cost of instruction as apposed to adding computers to each set of student equipment. This way instead we just give em what the'll actually use which is nothing.

Of course I'm being carcastic but I have many times heard of divers renting equipment at resorts and not getting depth gauges or computers. The boat crew knows the depth and controls the time. Everything is preplanned.

 

[Diver0001]

MikeFerrara once bubbled...


It may be practical but if we're goint follow this line of logic why bother. Let's just tell them that they'll be following a DM and teach them how to follow a DM well. That is what most do. At least that would lower the cost of instruction as apposed to adding computers to each set of student equipment. This way instead we just give em what the'll actually use which is nothing.

Of course I'm being carcastic but I have many times heard of divers renting equipment at resorts and not getting depth gauges or computers. The boat crew knows the depth and controls the time. Everything is preplanned.

Well Mike, I'm not quite sure how to respond to this except to ask a couple of rhetorical questions:

- Do you serious think that table usage (I'm not talking about the theory, just how to use the tables) is really the basis for becoming a responsible diver who doesn't need a DM to babysit?

or put another way

- Do you seriously believe that if someone knows exactly how to use a computer but can't find their way around a table that this says anything about the level of supervision they need?

R..

 

[Walter]

"Let's just tell them that they'll be following a DM and teach them how to follow a DM well."

That's what the majority of OW courses teach now. I wouldn't use the example of table mastery, but they are sorely lacking in water skills and confidence.