DIR-F Lite - "Essentials of Diving"

[Kim]

Are you implying I ever called anyone that?

I never have, and would enact disciplinary action on any user who directly insults another user.

No not at all. No-one called you a lemming in this thread either! eyebrow
Lighten up!

The point I believe that OE2X was making was simply that if GUE/DIR divers are attacked then they take it personally....much the same way that PADI instructors might take it personally when they are denigrated - or other people who are charged with being strokes simply because they refuse to agree with GI3. As far as SB is concerned we don't allow such insults in either direction. In the world outside SB though the insults flow freely. I just think it's a pity and produces somewhat of a chicken and egg situation.

The fact is that not all GUE/DIR divers use such insults - and not all other divers do either. There are some on both sides that do though, and considering who originally started bandying the insults around it's no surprise what follows then.

Again Jonnythan - these are general comments and observations - nothing to do with anyone who doesn't fit the shoe! eyebrow

 

[MikeFerrara]

==this isn't directed only at you, Mike, but your post gives me a nice little soap box to start with==



And some won't. This kind of talk is like pointing at the worst drivers on the road and drawing all kinds of conclusions about the rest .....

Some people are just heads-drilled-full-of-holes idiots and unfortunately some of them become scuba instructors. Most are not like that and to conclude that they are because the system doesn't do a good enough job of screening the losers is drawing bigger conclusions than I believe can be supported by the big picture.

In other words, while I will agree that the system doesn't do a good enough job of screening the losers but that doesn't make the losers the norm.

There is also another aspect to this that I believe is often forgotten, which is personal responsibility. If someone is taught badly then they should be able to recognise that (at some point) and should take responsibility (regardless of what happened to get them in that situation) for doing something about it.

And finally, where you set the bar is important. It's literally impossible to teach flawless buoyancy control to everyone. At some level, personal aptitude plays a roll. Some people can learn it with a few hours of instruction, some will still be struggling with it after 50. Just to give you an example, I once had two people in the pool for a scuba review. They had done all of their training together and all of their dives together to date. One of them was totally sorted out. Alert, accurate, skills nailed, buoyancy good, finning good...etc and the other one could do *nothing* but look at me like a stunned cow the whole time. This case was extreme becuase I don't believe the diver in question should have been certified but such variations, even in a single group of people taking OW are the norm. At some point you need to set a limit on the effort you're willing to put into to and let people just go dive (assuming, of course, that they've learned the required skills).

{edit- added} BTW, this is both a fundamental difference and a fundamental similarity with DIR-F. DIR-F doesn't attract as many "stunned cows" as PADI OW does (that's the difference) and they also limit their effort and let people just go dive (the similarity).

I just think that expecting OW students to be able to roll straight on through to DIR-F or Tech-1 is absurd and bashing PADI and others for not making that their priority is also absurd.

R..

Some good points Rob but the standards are the standards. I don't think that an instructor who uses the standards to the letter or teaches as he is taught to to the best of his ability is in any way shirking responsibility. I may say that he ispoorly trained but who am I? The fact is that the system (some agencies more than others) is geared to get divers diving fast. Instructors get special training in how to quickly present the minimums to maximize profit for the dive center they work for. In my case I got that training from a course director who is also a shop owner and knows what kind of instructors that he wants to employ.

An individual can work in, out above or below a system. However, it is the system that sets the bar. Simply reading training standards with an understanding eye tells you exactly how many, if not most, divers are trained. Instructor go right down the list of skills which is easiest while sitting on the bottom. The get off the bottom long enough to do their neutral swim and one minute of hovering. When the list is complete students get their ticket and are sold an AOW course for the following weekend where they will do new things like tie knots while sitting on the bottom. Why do they get sold an AOW for the very next weekend? Because their PADI regional rep came into their store and coached them on how important it is to jump in there right away while the student is still interested. He also coached them on what a wonderful sales tool the AOW class is because students will now need lights for their night dive, wistles, compases, lift bags ect. We can argue whether this is good or bad but it meets standards to the letter and I don't see any sense in assigning blame or fault to an instructor who knows and follows his agencies standards and his own training.

I'm with Walter in that I think all this talk of it being "the instructor" is total hogwash. It's not reasonable to expect anything from the instructor that the agency doesn't require of them. The agency wrote the standards and they own them. They also train and certify the instructor so when we see instructors who have poor technique and look at the standards and see what it is that an instructor candidate must demonstrate (or not demonstrate) we know why. Again when an instructor follows standards and his own training and the student does the same, why should any one of them suspect that they are doing things any way other than exactly right? If the agency is not "the authority" on the subject then who is? In the context of training it's the agency that defines good diving and good teaching. Within that context and the climate of the industry, the instructors that I mentioned in my last post are by definition GOOD instructors. Why should any one expect more from them? Who would pay them to do more?

No, I think that the way people dive and the way instructors teach overall is an accurate reflection of what is written in the training standards...no more and no less. If we don't like it there's one place to look and that is to the agency.

Further, IMO, any instructor who feels the need to somehow teach beyond the standards should be complaining about those standards to the agency that wrote them. From a business stand point if teaching more doesn't somehow make more profit it's just a stupid thing to do. The competition isn't going to add that additional expense. They'll trim the class down to the minimum and offer a cheaper class with a more convenient schedule. They'll get more of the market and absolutely insure that the bar stays exactly where the agency set it. The card you hand your students is not in any way superior to the card offered by the chop shop down the street. It says the EXACT same thing on it and gets the holder the exact same access and privilages.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Now lets look at this from the perspective of the consumer. I look in the phone book and find three shops all of the same agency. I determine that the agencies cridentials meet my needs (I have a tropical trip planned and I want to go diving this year). All three are conducting traiing with the blessing of that agency but one is significant;y less expensive and has a much more convenient schedule. I can get my credential in 3 days rather than the 5 to 10 days at the other shops and it's $150 less. Why should I not select this shop? Where have I been lax in my research? The product offered is the same...an agency X OW card. I don't need to read consumer reports or something...unless maybe I want to compare different products (in this case cards from different agencies).

you might say, "well the instructor at the other shop teaches a much better class and goes far above the requirements as set forth in the standards". But wait, the agency apparantly doesn't feel that's important. The other shops don't think so. Sounds like BS to me. Who is this guy to think that he somehow knows something that the agency doesn't or to require things that the agency doesn't?

Sorry the agency just totally blew that instructors credability. In either case some one is pulling my leg. Some one is not being streight with me about what I really need to learn. Should I believe that it's the agency or the lone instructor trying to claim I need more than his own agency says I need? Note, his own agency, the one he pays membership dues to and the one he has chosen to belong to and teach through.

IMO, any instructor who feels they need to add to the standards needs to require more from their agency before sending them money. That teaching cridential and those standards are, in themselves, products that the instructor has chosen.

 

[WaterDawg]

Mike,
thats the best post Ive read on SB.

 

[CIBDiving]

As NAUI was just recently incorporated, 1959 I think, they could probably learn a lot from a few good DIR gurus teaching them how to do it right!!!

ROTFLMFAO (you guys are killing me here!!!)

Are you sane? what's your point? Oh, wait I don't care!

 

[kidspot]

Mike, that was a well thought out and worded. Passionate, yet level-headed. Thank you as usual for that.

Unfortunately, some instructors have little choice in the matter. In my state a person desiring to become an independent instructor has only one agency to choose from, so in a sense it becomes "forced hypocrisy"...

Just talking outloud,
Tim

 

[Diver0001]

Some good points Rob but the standards are the standards. .

You assume that everyone who *can* will perform to the minimum expectation.

Do you think this is fair? Do you think it is accurate?

R..

 

[Diver0001]

Now lets look at this from the perspective of the consumer. I look in the phone book and find three shops all of the same agency. I determine that the agencies cridentials meet my needs (I have a tropical trip planned and I want to go diving this year). All three are conducting traiing with the blessing of that agency but one is significant;y less expensive and has a much more convenient schedule. I can get my credential in 3 days rather than the 5 to 10 days at the other shops and it's $150 less. Why should I not select this shop? Where have I been lax in my research? The product offered is the same...an agency X OW card. I don't need to read consumer reports or something...unless maybe I want to compare different products (in this case cards from different agencies).

you might say, "well the instructor at the other shop teaches a much better class and goes far above the requirements as set forth in the standards". But wait, the agency apparantly doesn't feel that's important. The other shops don't think so. Sounds like BS to me. Who is this guy to think that he somehow knows something that the agency doesn't or to require things that the agency doesn't?

Sorry the agency just totally blew that instructors credability. In either case some one is pulling my leg. Some one is not being streight with me about what I really need to learn. Should I believe that it's the agency or the lone instructor trying to claim I need more than his own agency says I need? Note, his own agency, the one he pays membership dues to and the one he has chosen to belong to and teach through.

IMO, any instructor who feels they need to add to the standards needs to require more from their agency before sending them money. That teaching cridential and those standards are, in themselves, products that the instructor has chosen.

Well..... I'm not sure if the consumer you're describing is typical but the basic image rings a bell. This is a nice post because it shows that not only instructors and agencies are caught up in the vicious circle but also consumers.

Just yesterday I was sitting in a meeting with a bunch of people and we were talking about buying a product from an external agency. The agency offered us 4 alternatives, which you could call "bronze" "silver" "gold" and "diamond". Bronze was useless, and diamond was ridiculous but when the moment to buy arrived one of my colleagues said "I want the Gold. I want it tomorrow and I want it for free".

Naturally everyone had to laugh but the principle is the same. He's just a consumer. He wants a high quality product without waiting and without paying. Looks like the same things apply in many areas of life.

So who is at fault? The consumer for setting the bar for buying so high or the sales(person) for setting the bar for selling so low..... There is definitely a push-and-pull happening here and you can't just blame the instructors or the agency for creating the problem. Maybe the agency and certainly many instructors have gone through their knees but the issue was already out there.

Clearly, in the recreational sports market, those who sell are more vulnerable than those who buy.

R..

 

[Wayward Son]

Maybe real, honest-to-God hairy chested DIR divers aren't going to want the term 'DIR' invoked for this class. I dunno, I'm not one. I just heard of DIR less than a year ago.

A class for certified divers to learn far better buoyancy control than they can possibly get in a std OW course, 4 different kicks, and a different way to configure their reg & handle an OOA situation.

I started diving in 1972. If someone near me teaches this, I'd take it.

I'm 44 now. I doubt I will ever go tech. While I do have an interest in cave & wreck penetration, odds are that I won't be doing either. For one thing my wife has no interest in either & really doesn't want me doing it, either. When you're married you don't just risk your own life, you must factor others into your decisions.

So the full DIR path to tech, the odds are that I won't do that. But I am interested in learning these fin kicks, and developing more precise buoyancy controls. I think this can be more efficiently be accomplished with some actual instruction, rather than simply muddling though on my own, knowing that it can be done but not really how it's done.

So, call the class/workshop what ever makes you happy. Doesn't matter to me. I think it's a good idea & would like to take it.

 

[MikeFerrara]

You assume that everyone who *can* will perform to the minimum expectation.

Do you think this is fair? Do you think it is accurate?

R..

It sounds like you're assuming that there's something wrong with an instructor who teaches stricktly to the standards. Is that fair? What's wrong with only providing the minimum permitted by standards? Aren't the standards good enough? If there's something else that should really be taught, then why not add it to the standards so you can be certain that every one is teaching it?

I'm not assuming anything about "everyone". I've known a few really great instructors so they are out there but niether the standards nor the agency deserve any credit for it.

I assume that the minimum required by standards is all one MUST deliver and that the agency must be satisfied with that or they would have higher minimums. I assume that many will choose to do that based on plain old business concerns. Besides I've seen it so I don't have to assume.

I also know how I was trained and how I was trained to teach.

I know first hand what instructors are tested on and what level of mastery they must demonstrate in two different agencies.

I also know that at least with some agencies the standards aren't meant to be the minimum. They're meant to dictate what is taught with the one big judgement call involving what constitutes student mastery.

"The agency" is fully aware if their standards would allow the certification of an OW student who crawls though their 4 dives as long as they get neutral at some point on the 4th dive. They are also completely aware that at least some instructors will certify divers under those conditions because it IS within standards and by their definition meets the requirement for mastery. LOL