"diver competence" as discussed in this month's "Dive Training" magazine

[drbill]

DevonDiver... there is a BIG difference. Back then you weren't OW certified until you had gone through the entire course up to and including basic Rescue. Today you need to take three courses to get to that point.

Peter: no question that certain things weren't taught back then. I never had a BCD until I was required to wear one on a Cousteau dive in 1989. It failed and the DM asked me what we should do. I told her I'd disconnect the damned thing and dive without it. She said "You can do that?" I replied "I have been for 28 years." We learned how to control buoyancy without a BCD... much more refined approach... although today I wouldn't think of diving without one! We had no dive computers, octos or SPGs back then so, of course, we weren't trained on them. However with today's diverse range of dive computers, how does one teach a student to use one when they are all so different. Without an SPG I think we learned to "better" manage our gas (at least in terms of avoiding situations where we might run OOA). Not much training required to use an SPG itself... but the diver needs to be trained to actually look at them with some frequency (a skill a number of OW divers apparently have not learned based on my observations). And I think we practiced better buddy skills back then because of the lack of modern safety devices. I wouldn't want to go back to the training of the 60s today with our modern equipment, but the OW training most agencies provide is minimal at best.

 

[cocoajoe]

Regarding the high (?) attrition rate: I think it's due to several factors. But maybe the biggest is how much you like diving or as someone else said, 'they didn't get the bug.' I've always been a water baby....swimming, surfing, fishing, never too far from the water. So diving was just a natural progression for me. I think maybe that's not the case for the large majority of divers.

 

[DevonDiver]

DevonDiver... there is a BIG difference. Back then you weren't OW certified until you had gone through the entire course up to and including basic Rescue. Today you need to take three courses to get to that point.

Just a different name then. OW does not equal OW, it equals something else.

BSAC is the same, even now. Rescue skills are combined with core development (OW/Sports Diver)... virtually equating to the PADI Rescue Diver once qualified (although a separate module/specialty of 'Practical Rescue Management' is/was needed to be fully equivalent).

PADI gets people in the water, diving, quicker. They don't make a secret of that - actively promoting the 'Dive Today' philosophy.

I think that has positive and negative merits. It does get more people to try diving, that's good. However, it does get those people into the water much quicker - without the comprehensive training base that many of us feel is critical for safety. Of course, that's offset by limitations (recommendations) on depth and activity - very much keeping novice open water divers in the 'kids pool', until further training and experience are gained.

IMHO, getting people into the water (as divers) early is a good thing - quickly leaving them unsupervised and with the illusion of being 'independent' is not.

A lot of people are skeptical about PADI's continuing education policy/system - but, in truth, it's just part of the balance to redress the minimal training given at the outset.

Personally, I think that Rescue Diver should be a primary goal for divers:
- Divers should not be unsupervised until they have self and buddy rescue skills. DM supported dives should be mandatory until that time.
- Divers should not conduct advanced (deep, wreck etc) dives until they have self and buddy rescue skills. Course prerequisites should reflect that.

In short - I don't see anything spectacularly wrong with quick-fix "McDiver" courses - but subsequent activities and training should reflect the limited nature of that initial training.

Sadly, neither the agencies concerned, nor many of the divers who opt for quick-fix courses are likely to acknowledge that.

 

[birdwrasse]

...those are some fantastic responses...!!! i appreciate the critical thinking and time that many dedicated to addressing the topic.

--c

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Just a different name then. OW does not equal OW, it equals something else.

BSAC is the same, even now. Rescue skills are combined with core development (OW/Sports Diver)... virtually equating to the PADI Rescue Diver once qualified (although a separate module/specialty of 'Practical Rescue Management' is/was needed to be fully equivalent).

PADI gets people in the water, diving, quicker. They don't make a secret of that - actively promoting the 'Dive Today' philosophy.

I think that has positive and negative merits. It does get more people to try diving, that's good. However, it does get those people into the water much quicker - without the comprehensive training base that many of us feel is critical for safety. Of course, that's offset by limitations (recommendations) on depth and activity - very much keeping novice open water divers in the 'kids pool', until further training and experience are gained.

IMHO, getting people into the water (as divers) early is a good thing - quickly leaving them unsupervised and with the illusion of being 'independent' is not.

A lot of people are skeptical about PADI's continuing education policy/system - but, in truth, it's just part of the balance to redress the minimal training given at the outset.

Personally, I think that Rescue Diver should be a primary goal for divers:
- Divers should not be unsupervised until they have self and buddy rescue skills. DM supported dives should be mandatory until that time.
- Divers should not conduct advanced (deep, wreck etc) dives until they have self and buddy rescue skills. Course prerequisites should reflect that.

In short - I don't see anything spectacularly wrong with quick-fix "McDiver" courses - but subsequent activities and training should reflect the limited nature of that initial training.

Sadly, neither the agencies concerned, nor many of the divers who opt for quick-fix courses are likely to acknowledge that.

I'll disagree with that last statement by pointing out that not all of today's agencies follow PADI's philosophy. In my NAUI OW classes, I'm still required to train divers how to perform an underwater unconscious diver recovery. One of the core skills is bringing a diver from 20 feet to the surface and towing them to the exit point. All OW divers are required to learn the three basic rescue tows.

NAUI's philosophy has always been that rescue skills are to be taught at every level ... from the entry-level class and on. It's why they have never required AOW prior to Rescue class ... you can take Rescue class at any point after initial certification, which I understand PADI has recently decided to also do.

The NAUI Rescue class certainly continues to refine these skills ... but its real emphasis is on training divers how to recognize problems and address them before a rescue is needed. They call it the "Zero Accident Goal" ... which boils down to it's better to intervene to prevent the need for a rescue than it is to have to perform one.

We don't train OW divers for the "kid's pool" ... where I dive and teach, we don't have one of those. Divers are expected to come out of OW class qualified to plan and conduct dives without supervision ... because in Puget Sound it's rare in the extreme to see anyone enter the water with a DM. My first dives coming out of OW ... having completed the YMCA OW class ... were done with someone I went through the class with. We neither had, nor felt the need to have, supervision for those dives. If we had not been qualified to do them on our own, I don't think our instructor would've certified us.

Many agencies today still adhere to that philosophy ... and one thing I'd like to see recognized on ScubaBoard is that in the real world, there's way more options out there than just PADI.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[DevonDiver]

I'll disagree with that last statement by pointing out that not all of today's agencies follow PADI's philosophy....... and one thing I'd like to see recognized on ScubaBoard is that in the real world, there's way more options out there than just PADI.

Bob...agreed. That's why I specifically stated "..

the agencies concerned, nor many of the divers who opt for quick-fix courses...".

Either superficial entry-level training coupled with post-qualification restrictions OR comprehensive entry-level training with less restrictions.

Neither approach, IMHO, is better or worse - provided that the post-qualification activity matches the nature of the training. For the more superficial courses, that should mean professional supervision, until self/buddy rescue skills are attained. Divers shouldn't be in the water without someone capable in rescue.​

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Bob...agreed. That's why I specifically stated "..

the agencies concerned, nor many of the divers who opt for quick-fix courses...".

Either superficial entry-level training coupled with post-qualification restrictions OR comprehensive entry-level training with less restrictions.

Neither approach, IMHO, is better or worse - provided that the post-qualification activity matches the nature of the training. For the more superficial courses, that should mean professional supervision, until self/buddy rescue skills are attained. Divers shouldn't be in the water without someone capable in rescue.​

This would be easier to do if courses were clearly labelled for what they are.

PADI has a habit of co-opting names that other agencies have applied to their courses and marketing a less comprehensive class using the same name. They do so intentionally ... to give people the impression that they're getting the same level of certification for less effort and less money, when in fact what they're getting is a much lower level of training. "Master Diver" is one such ... "Scuba Diver" is another. Both of those names were applied to classes that NAUI and other agencies used before PADI even existed ... and have now been co-opted by PADI for classes that don't provide anywhere near the level of training as the same named class by the other agencies.

It's easy to sell classes when you do that ... but you're not doing your clients any favors by misleading them in terms of what they're buying ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Bob DBF]

Just a different name then. OW does not equal OW, it equals something else.

Which is my problem with the system, why did they not bring back the "Scuba Diver" cert, or make up some other name, if the diver needs supervision after the class?

IMHO, getting people into the water (as divers) early is a good thing - quickly leaving them unsupervised and with the illusion of being 'independent' is not.

An OW card is the proof they are independent. If they are not able to be OW divers don't hand out the card.


When I finally got my OW card, the class was approx 12hrs class, 12hrs pool, 1 skin dive and 6 tank dives. This was a NAUI/PADI class diving on the North Coast of CA. 1980. I would have and did, in some cases, dive the north coast with divers fresh out of class. I would not do the same with the new OW divers out of the classes I have seen recently. Not that I wouldn't dive with them, but they need better command of their skills before going in the open ocean around here.


Bob
---------------------------------
I may be old, but I’m not dead yet.

 

[drbill]

The issue of OW <> OW is an important one, of course. If dive ops require a certain level of training to do a dive (say PADI AOW), it should not be based on whether the diver has an AOW card but rather on the skill level required in that particular agency's certification. My LAC "OW" class allowed me to dive to 130 ft and gave me rescue skills yet when traveling I was usually grouped with those who had achieved PADI OW level of incompetence.

I was asked by PADI instructors to do check out dives when I had been diving longer than the instructor had been alive. Of course this is in part due to the PADI instructors not having a clear understanding of the training levels involved in other agency's certifications. It wasn't until I was in Cairns, Australia, that a PADI instructor immediately recognized my LAC cert card (said it was a museum piece) and offered to give me a PADI AOW cet for the cost of materials so I wouldn't get asked by other PADI dive pros about my c-card and skill level.

 

[DevonDiver]

This would be easier to do if courses were clearly labelled for what they are.

PADI has a habit of co-opting names that other agencies have applied to their courses and marketing a less comprehensive class using the same name. They do so intentionally ...

I agree with that - course naming has more to do with marketing, than any real reflection of competency. Beyond that, PADI do stipulate that OW certification produces divers who may dive without professional supervision. My personal belief is that every diver should have supervision/support from a rescue trained diver. That'd either mean taking away the 'independence' until Rescue level, and/or stipulating that an OW/AOW must be buddied with - at least - a Rescue trained diver. The second option would go some way towards developing a system of mentoring... and encourage continued education.

Of course, that'd mean an admission that their courses weren't comparable with some other agency courses of the same name. However, a comparative glance at different agency course prices/durations/syllabus should make that reasonably evident to any intelligent person.

The PADI 'Scuba Diver' course still exists - the 'end state' of training (recommended limits and necessity for supervision) would be appropriate to most PADI Open Water divers. It wouldn't cramp their style either - as most chose to, or rely upon, professional dive guides anyway.

For those that object to more limitations, or the necessity for further training, at the entry-level - then perhaps they should have chosen a different agency/course to certify with in the first place...