My individual opinion, based on your comments in several posts, is that you are reading into a variety of
unrelated, if not entirely disconnected, and primarily
anecdotal experiences (combined with a rather interesting if
unconventional use of the English language), evidence of agency cultures and trends, which simply does not exist as far as a reasonably objective person might see. And, that is fine with me – it is your privilege. But, I have to admit that I am intrigued by some of your comments, and will take exception since this is a public forum, with several of your assertions.
sigxbill:
Regardless of DEMA's ban on anti-nitrox presentations, the anti-nitrox sentiment continued in padi up until recently. When my local SportsChalet closed just a couple of years ago, they still didn't pump nitrox and wrote it off as unimportant to consumers.
So, you assert that a single
business practice (to not do something because it was considered by THAT INDIVIDUAL
BUSINESS to be unimportant to consumers), of one individual
business entity (your local Sports Chalet), which was related to PADI only by the fact that it offered PADI courses (including Enriched Air Diver), and which is now out of
business, somehow represents a corporate ‘anti-nitrox’ bias on the part of the PADI agency, which has nonetheless been actively teaching and promoting enriched air use for at least 20+ years? Since, you have used the term ‘logic’ in discussing standards and agency behavior, allow me to use it as well to describe such an assertion as illogical.
sigxbill:
15 years old means padi has reduced their standard to 10 year olds.
An interesting use of the English language. To be accurate, PADI
has not changed the minimum age required to be certified as an
Open Water Diver. That age is still 15. No ‘reduction’, as you wish to term it, of standards there. However, they have
expanded the opportunities for interested students to receive scuba training, and created a
Junior Open Water Diver certification, which allows dive students between 10 and 14 years of age to learn to dive, and then dive after the ‘Junior’ certification, with limitations of depth (60 feet maximum, and dive buddy. I believe that SSI also offers JUNIOR Open Water training beginning at age 10, SDI offers JUNIOR Open Water training beginning at age 10, and NAUI offers it beginning at age 12. None of these agencies offer Open Water Diver certification to students less than 15 years of age. So, do you disagree with that ‘Junior’ option being made available? If so, why? Just curious.
sigxbill:
A couple of padi divers in my local club just completed their tdi advanced nitrox / decompression procedures, . . . Even though tdi offers helitrox, these two new deco divers have been preaching that helitrox is not necessary, and that gear, tolerance, and experience can allow divers, especially themselves, to overcome co2 buildup and narcosis. My question is: given that tdi offers helitrox, and their instructor is certified to teach trimix, . . .how did these divers come to this conclusion? While there is no way to say for sure, I believe it has to do with agency culture.
I have no idea where they got their notions. Possibly, it was from . . . their
instructor? I am a credentialed PADI Tec Deep Instructor, and I can state, without fear of contradiction, that there is no
agency culture within PADI supporting a notion ‘that gear, tolerance, and experience can allow divers, especially themselves, to overcome co2 buildup and narcosis.’ Are you by any chance confused, and are thinking of the PSAI Narcosis Management course, often referred to as a Deep Air course?
sigxbill:
what I am saying is that padi was opposed to tech prior to dsat ...
OK, I am not sure they were 'opposed' as much as 'uninvolved'. But, even accepting the term: DSAT was formed in
1986. So, you are saying that a PADI position held more than three decades ago, when there was very little technical dive training being offered by any agency, and some agencies (such as GUE which was formed in 1998) did not even exist, is somehow a 'differentiating trend' in 2017?
sigxbill:
Except for #3, I call this randomly picking an agency. Number three I call picking for money.
Again, an interesting use of the English language. Pardon me for being didactic, but ‘random’ can be defined as: made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision. Synonyms for ‘random’ might include unsystematic, unmethodical, arbitrary, unplanned, undirected, nonspecific, haphazard, stray or erratic’. If an Instructor candidate chooses to pursue training with an agency because a) they are already familiar with the structure of many / most of the courses they will actually teach with that particular agency credential, b) have already completed the specific pre-requisites of that particular agency, c) are already familiar with the particular shop, affiliated with that agency, through which they propose to train, I have trouble, using any interpretation of the word ‘random’ that I can find in any dictionary, calling such a choice ‘random’. Or, if they live in Saskatchewan, but really want to pursue training in a warm, high visibility Caribbean environment, and choose Bonaire because they love diving there, and select the Buddy Dive operation which offers PADI Instructor training, I would hardly call that ‘random’. What these choices may mean is that History and familiarity, and choice of ‘Location’ are more important factors than choice of ‘agency’ to many instructor candidates. .
The majority (that is, more than 50.0%) of Instructors with whom I am personally familiar (a not inconsequential number but by no means the universe of Instructors) and students I have taught, did not pick the agency through which to become an Instructor on the basis of any knowledge of ‘history of choices at critical junctures, ideals, lack of contradictions and founder's history’. Like it or not, that is reality. I have spoken with some (newer) NAUI Instructors who had no idea who Al Tillman was, (newer) PADI Instructors who have no idea who John Cronin was (and, regrettably with regard to both agencies, could care less). Personally, I do find the history of agencies to be interesting. But, I find that I am in a growing minority, and that has nothing to do with my particular agency.
I commend you for continuing to return to the primary theme of the thread - dispelling the myth of ‘It’s the instructor not the agency’. And, I have said that I do not personally subscribe to that myth, because I believe that both instructor and agency contribute to the training experience. And, you appear to be making the argument that ‘It’s the agency not the instructor’, which is fine, even if I don’t fully agree with it, although I see differences among agencies in appraoch an offerings, that are not necessarily better or worse, just different. But, you are also making assertions about ‘differentiating trends’ and specific agency cultures and policies that are simply inaccurate, at least as presented. If you assert your position on the basis of fact, and stated policies and practices, fine. But, making inferences on the basis of inaccurate statements, and anecdotal and frankly irrelevant experiences,should no go unchallenged.