In my maybe not so humble as it should be opinion this needs to stop now. Believe it or not I don't think all agencies OW standards require a timming device. A lot of good a depth gauge does without a watch.
big PADI mistake
- Thread starter miguel sanz
- Start date
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
gentlegiant
Contributor
As one poster mentioned previously PADI quality control does leave a lot to be desired. All training comes down to the individual instructor, but it seems to me that PADI is so concerned at having the market leadership that they tend to overlook mistakes by instructors.
I have made 2 complaints to PADI and I think both of them ended up in the magic round-file system they use for complaints. To me it seems that PADI does not make regular QC checks at diveshops that are not "certified PADI dive centers" or spot checks on instructors the way some other agencies do. Don't get me worng, I have met many PADI instructors who are top notch and do a great job. I have also seen several PADI instructors who had no business teaching a class.
I personally think that all instructors, regardless of agency, should receive at least 1 unannounced QC check per year. There also needs to be a feedback loop that gets closed when someone files a complaint with PADI. Their "official policy" is to not report back to the complaint filer any disciplinary action that has been taken. In my mind this says "we are not going to take action unless someone gets hurt, killed or files a lawsuit". These are my own personal observations and opinions. I am not an instructor or DM so I might be totally wrong here. I had a great instructor, so maybe I just got my expectations raised higher than they should have been.
I have made 2 complaints to PADI and I think both of them ended up in the magic round-file system they use for complaints. To me it seems that PADI does not make regular QC checks at diveshops that are not "certified PADI dive centers" or spot checks on instructors the way some other agencies do. Don't get me worng, I have met many PADI instructors who are top notch and do a great job. I have also seen several PADI instructors who had no business teaching a class.
I personally think that all instructors, regardless of agency, should receive at least 1 unannounced QC check per year. There also needs to be a feedback loop that gets closed when someone files a complaint with PADI. Their "official policy" is to not report back to the complaint filer any disciplinary action that has been taken. In my mind this says "we are not going to take action unless someone gets hurt, killed or files a lawsuit". These are my own personal observations and opinions. I am not an instructor or DM so I might be totally wrong here. I had a great instructor, so maybe I just got my expectations raised higher than they should have been.
First of all, perhaps I'm just not grasping the full complexity of gas management, but I was told to use a rule of 1/3's when doing an out and back, ascend at 1000 psi on a drift dive, check my gauges on a regular basis and don't think I can't have an OOA. When diving with either a buddy or a small group, the biggest gas hog determines the turn or ascent. I realize that when diving more complex patterns a different approach must be taken, but really, how hard is it to do what I outlined above modified to suit a different dive.
I use a computer when I'm diving, but the tables are a reality check in case the computer starts spitting out ridiculous numbers. I have a base to build on so I know if the computer is right and I have a fallback in case it fails.
From what I know of conversions, 28 meters is damn close to 60 ft, so yes, that would be a standard depth for OW certified divers.
Why do I follow a divemaster? Because he/she knows where to cool stuff is. I've posted copiously on other threads about how I have conducted myself in the past on led dives and how I will be modifying my approach in the future. This is one area where the "know your limits" aspect of training falls woefully short. There's a lot of talk in the training materials about limits "except when supervised" and this is where the OW diver can get in big trouble. A divemaster is, for all intents and purposes, a supervisor and a diver (me) might well consider that pushing limits with a divemaster is license enough to ignore the limits.
In summary:
tables: good
computer: good
gas management: probably could be expanded upon
follow the divemaster: needs LOTS more work
Rachel
PADI certified 5/2002
I use a computer when I'm diving, but the tables are a reality check in case the computer starts spitting out ridiculous numbers. I have a base to build on so I know if the computer is right and I have a fallback in case it fails.
From what I know of conversions, 28 meters is damn close to 60 ft, so yes, that would be a standard depth for OW certified divers.
Why do I follow a divemaster? Because he/she knows where to cool stuff is. I've posted copiously on other threads about how I have conducted myself in the past on led dives and how I will be modifying my approach in the future. This is one area where the "know your limits" aspect of training falls woefully short. There's a lot of talk in the training materials about limits "except when supervised" and this is where the OW diver can get in big trouble. A divemaster is, for all intents and purposes, a supervisor and a diver (me) might well consider that pushing limits with a divemaster is license enough to ignore the limits.
In summary:
tables: good
computer: good
gas management: probably could be expanded upon
follow the divemaster: needs LOTS more work
Rachel
PADI certified 5/2002
If there is a good QA system in the industry I haven't seen it.
I think instructors and shops should be juged by the quality of their students and not the questionairs they fill out. To my knowledge all agncies have the same type of QA. They send out questionairs and if they can catch the instructor in something blatant they may address it.
Se7en
Contributor
Actually, for an OW diver, a depth guage is really useful, even without a watch.
With a max depth of 60 ft (which is 18 m, not 28m), you have the best part of 60 minutes bottom time, depending on which tables you use. Therefore, for a dive in this range, dive duration is going to be determined by air consumption, not NDL.
Therefore, a depth guage is much more important than a watch - as you know that if you stay shallower than say 50 feet, you don't have to worry about NDLs. However, a watch without a depth guage is pretty useless...
This opinion is coming from someone who used to dive sans watch, depth guage or spg... good things those J valves.
I agree with previous posts - more emphasis on gas management, and less on NDLs would be a better balance. I've been on trips where an OOA could easily have led to drowning, but I'm yet to see a life threatening bends case... You can get un bent easier than un drowned...
Have seen a number of experience divers get very worried about the possibility of racking some mandatory deco - yet quite happy to be back at the surface with 30 bar from a 40m bounce. Personally, my major concern is gas - I don't mind doing some more hang time, but I hate breathing water.
Mike
Diver0001 once bubbled...
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..
Taking the tables out would be a bad idea Computers are great but not eveyone has one and they do fail.
Everyone should know how much time they have to start with at a certain depth.
We already religh on computers way to much in the rest of our life's no one has to think anymore bad choice all around.:upset:
That's great for the first dive but what about the fourth?
Se7en
Contributor
OK Mike, let me expand.
The tools I consider most useful on a dive, in order;
INTELLIGENT THOUGHT
.
.
SPG
Depth guage
time piece
Light
Compass, lift bag, slate etc.
I guess I was assuming that given the first, you wouldn't do four dives a day without tracking N2 loading. However, I used to do two shore dives, with lunch between them, in sites I knew didn't drop deeper than 10 to 14m, without depthguage or watch. Because I had thought about it and knew that I wouldn't be incurring a deco obligation.
You can also apply a few more clues, and practice slow ascents and safety stops...
Mike
Se7en
Contributor
I'm sorry Diver0001, but if you actually did this dive - 75 min at 18m on an AL 80 full of air, you are an idiot.
I'd want at least 15min at 5m after that time/depth. If you did it on Nitrox 40, then you are fine, with a slow ascent and safety stop.
To do that dive, assuming you sucked every psi out of your tank, you'd need a sac of <11 litres per minute. I doubt I will ever meet anyone with a sac of <11 for a whole dive, who would not have enough clues to not do the dive above. Actually, I doubt I will ever meet anyone who uses a SAC of 10 to plan a whole dive...
A normal diver would do more like 40 minutes at 18m, and know (especially if not tracking time), to be conservative with air, and to do a reasonable safety stop. An idiot would drop to 40m, and stay there until they ran out of air, and then bolt for the surface. You can't stop idiots, but you can suggest that some activities are safe enough for people who can still think for them selves.
Se7en
Similar threads
