Diver Training, Has It Really Been Watered Down???

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

@drbill - Comparing red apples to green apples, compared to the LA Co course how would say PADI OW/AOW/Rescue stack up? Looking at the course standards and taking out instructor and local condition variation are they equal in your opinion?
 
@drbill - Comparing red apples to green apples, compared to the LA Co course how would say PADI OW/AOW/Rescue stack up? Looking at the course standards and taking out instructor and local condition variation are they equal is your opinion?
I took the LA Co Basic Scuba course in 1970 and PADI OW, AOW, and Rescue in 1997, 2004, and 2005. Altogether, there was more material and more diving in the latter. I also consider my PADI courses to have been quite good. Many things changed during my two periods of training, J to K valves, routine use of SPGs and depth gauges, second regulators, modern BCs, nitrox, dive computers... LA Co prepared me to be a competent, independent, safe diver in Southern California for the decade of the 70s. PADI assisted me in entering modern times to enjoy diving with my family and by myself today. The superb base I had from 70s has served me well ever since.
 
I took the LA Co Basic Scuba course in 1970 and PADI OW, AOW, and Rescue in 1997, 2004, and 2005. Altogether, there was more material and more diving in the latter. I also consider my PADI courses to have been quite good. Many things changed during my two periods of training, J to K valves, routine use of SPGs and depth gauges, second regulators, modern BCs, nitrox, dive computers... LA Co prepared me to be a competent, independent, safe diver in Southern California for the decade of the 70s. PADI assisted me in entering modern times to enjoy diving with my family and by myself today. The superb base I had from 70s has served me well ever since.
My deduction from reading SB 10 years is that all those PADI courses today probably approximate an OW course done 40-50 years ago, give or take. Problem that I and others point out is there is no Rescue training in today's OW course (other than tows, cramps). So two newly certified divers can buddy dive to 60' in conditions similar to, etc. Not good IMHO. I know, there is the odd agency/instructor that adds those skills, but it is not the norm.
 
My deduction from reading SB 10 years is that all those PADI courses today probably approximate an OW course done 40-50 years ago, give or take. Problem that I and others point out is there is no Rescue training in today's OW course (other than tows, cramps). So two newly certified divers can buddy dive to 60' in conditions similar to, etc. Not good IMHO. I know, there is the odd agency/instructor that adds those skills, but it is not the norm.
I find the "circle of awareness" compelling. As OW, it is all about you, and your survival. As AOW, you learn some new things to do while being concerned for your survival. As Rescue, you begin to look outside yourself, and be aware of the needs and concerns of others.

Or, as an old hand once described to me: OW is about not holding your breath, AOW is about some cool things to do while you are not holding your breath, and Rescue is what to do if someone holds their breath.
 
This is very true @boulderjohn and I took this into consideration before starting this post. Thus why I made the offer for the free audited Scuba Course (I considered it as a free Quality Control on myself for myself, being that I teach across multiple platforms, agencies, and consider myself an old school diver, but new age instructor). We thoroughly would like to be able to compare the two, but understand that not only are the agencies a variable, but that the individual instructors are a variable that will determined the outcome as well.



This is a great starting point, but you know as well as I do, following standards is interpreted as such as the instructor who reads them. An example would be integrating standards together. Skill 1--- Remove and Replace Weights, Skill 2--- Remove and Replace Gear. Integrated Skill 1 and 2---Remove and Replace Weight Integrated BCD with weights in weight pockets. The student technically performed both skills at the same time. Something we were not allowed to do when I got certified, simply because we did not have weight integrated BCD's. So has the advancement in gear allowed for easier training, yet jeopardized the safety of the student.

Now with that being said, I would like to keep the topic specifically on the Academic portion of the course. Online Training, compared to traditional 1 on 1 training with the instructor, is it really watered down to the point that divers do not feel they are getting enough information to be able to dive safely. And is the instructor so vital that a student is incapable of reading or watching material online, and able to retain the information without the instructor face to face.
I'm really late getting into this discussion so bear with me because I have a slightly different perspective. I'm a certified teacher so that's the background for my thoughts on the OW PADI course. Folks have different learning styles so the online course may work well for many but not all. I started the PADI course once and dropped out. I hated sitting in a classroom watching the videos and looking at my book. There was very little interaction with the instructor, little discussion of the concepts involved etc. I felt like I had no clue what the heck to do when I got into the water. It was a bummer because I really wanted to learn how to dive. Fast forward to a few months later when I took a Discover Scube course that included real practice in the water as well as written information that I had to read and a quiz and discussion. What a difference that made! The other factor was that my instructor really TAUGHT and loved to teach diving. I fell in love with diving from my first dive with him. Diving is a sport that requires skills. Skills need to be discussed and practiced until the student can do the the expected skills correctly and safely, I then did a second Discover Scuba back in Cozumel for more guided practice. When the time came to do the actual PADI OW course it all made sense and it was easy both the written part and the performance part. Everything I learned made sense and was connected the book learning with real practice. Personally, I think that the OW course should be a week long learning and practicing course. I also think that before people try the OW course they start with a Discover Scuba to see if they are really comfortable in the water. I don't mean one of those silly courses that cruise ships and resorts sometimes do but a measured experience in the water with the gear and a great instructor. I don't expect to get a bunch of "likes" on these comments but I figured I could at least offer my perspective. Happy to be certified and diving every chance I can.
 
My father was a commercial diver in the 1930s. His training consisted of a few questions such as, can you swim and how long can you hold your breath. Having answered these to the satisfaction of the instructor he was then taken to a large tank of water about 90 feet deep. (same tank used for submarine escape practice) In the company of the instructor he was taken down to about 70 feet then accompanied as he swam back to the surface, all this done by just holding his breath. After a few practices to show he could descend and ascend on his own he was trained. Next thing he was lowered into the dock in one of those bulky canvas suits with lead boots, a lead collar and a screw on helmet (that leaked). No instructor with him, just told to find his way about on the dock floor and tug on the rope when he wanted to come up. Some of the time they used some sort of aqualung / rebreather that they had to guess the flow of oxygen when adjusting it. Basically it was a case of hear is the gear, it works like this, put it on and get on with the job. The job being inspecting the underside of ships, dock gates etc. Compared to that even the most watered down PADI course seems excessive.
My initial PADI training consisted of a video (about 30 minutes) a brief discussion on the video then a sheet of questions, anything that was answered incorrectly the instructor went over again. Then we went to get into the gear and have it all explained (about a hour). Then it was into the swimming pool for initial instruction, BCD operation, fin pivots and getting the weighting right. Long break for lunch then back into pool for more mask clearing, regulator recover, CESA swim, fin pivots and just swimming round using breathing to control buoyancy. Stop for a cylinder change and a rest then into the sea. More BCD control, decent and ascent practice then a gentle slow paced dive with buoyancy adjustments, looking at and feeding fish and some hand signals practice. Then we dismantled and cleaned our equipment. Dive was 33 minutes and down to 11m. So within 5 hours of starting the course I was enjoying proper diving in the sea.
I went to my local club a week ago with a view to joining and getting in some practice before my next holiday. However I will not be joining them (certainly not at this stage anyway).They give a very thorough training but spend many, many weeks in the pool before going near open water. During training gloves and hoods have to be worn at all times and towards the end of the pool sessions drysuits. The reasoning behind this is because the club regards Northern England as cold water and only dive in dry suits. The cost of membership plus the added cost of a personal dry suit puts starting to dive with this club at well over £1,000. And that is before your open water dives and qualification. For little over £1,000 you can have a weeks holiday at a good hotel in the Canaries or Mediterranean, full PADI OW and several dives afterwards.
Some might call the PADI option watering down, but for a given £spend who will have the most real dive experience in varied sea conditions?
 
My father was a commercial diver in the 1930s. His training consisted of a few questions such as, can you swim and how long can you hold your breath. Having answered these to the satisfaction of the instructor he was then taken to a large tank of water about 90 feet deep. (same tank used for submarine escape practice) In the company of the instructor he was taken down to about 70 feet then accompanied as he swam back to the surface, all this done by just holding his breath. After a few practices to show he could descend and ascend on his own he was trained. Next thing he was lowered into the dock in one of those bulky canvas suits with lead boots, a lead collar and a screw on helmet (that leaked). No instructor with him, just told to find his way about on the dock floor and tug on the rope when he wanted to come up. Some of the time they used some sort of aqualung / rebreather that they had to guess the flow of oxygen when adjusting it. Basically it was a case of hear is the gear, it works like this, put it on and get on with the job. The job being inspecting the underside of ships, dock gates etc. Compared to that even the most watered down PADI course seems excessive.
My initial PADI training consisted of a video (about 30 minutes) a brief discussion on the video then a sheet of questions, anything that was answered incorrectly the instructor went over again. Then we went to get into the gear and have it all explained (about a hour). Then it was into the swimming pool for initial instruction, BCD operation, fin pivots and getting the weighting right. Long break for lunch then back into pool for more mask clearing, regulator recover, CESA swim, fin pivots and just swimming round using breathing to control buoyancy. Stop for a cylinder change and a rest then into the sea. More BCD control, decent and ascent practice then a gentle slow paced dive with buoyancy adjustments, looking at and feeding fish and some hand signals practice. Then we dismantled and cleaned our equipment. Dive was 33 minutes and down to 11m. So within 5 hours of starting the course I was enjoying proper diving in the sea.
I went to my local club a week ago with a view to joining and getting in some practice before my next holiday. However I will not be joining them (certainly not at this stage anyway).They give a very thorough training but spend many, many weeks in the pool before going near open water. During training gloves and hoods have to be worn at all times and towards the end of the pool sessions drysuits. The reasoning behind this is because the club regards Northern England as cold water and only dive in dry suits. The cost of membership plus the added cost of a personal dry suit puts starting to dive with this club at well over £1,000. And that is before your open water dives and qualification. For little over £1,000 you can have a weeks holiday at a good hotel in the Canaries or Mediterranean, full PADI OW and several dives afterwards.
Some might call the PADI option watering down, but for a given £spend who will have the most real dive experience in varied sea conditions?
Well I'm totally impressed and amazed with those that learned the way our Dad learned to dive!
 
'Has Diver Training Been Watered Down?' Absolutely.
Is this justified? Yes, to some degree.

I was certified in 1965, an Instructor in 1971 and a Navy Diver in 1972. The diver training programs then were largely designed with the understanding that no buoyancy systems were available at the time (surface May West type devices only). The Diver had to be prepared to propel themselves to the surface (negative buoyancy caused by suit compression). The Diver had to be in good physical condition.

Secondly, equipment wasn't as reliable. Although not as unreliable as some people would have you think. There was one source of air, so buddy breathing and other skillsets were required. Training was also done under harassment, in order to simulate an increased stress situation. All of this was done to maximize the chances of survival for the new Diver. Training included Diver Rescue, as this wasn't considered an 'optional skillset.'

With the commercialization of the 'Diving Industry,' it became apparent that this was a huge source of revenue. One particular certification agency led the charge. A decision was made to lower the standards to make diver certification less difficult. Shorter training times would increase the numbers of divers to be certified (and who could meet the lower and lower standards).

This was good business.; with the increased numbers, the sales of diving equipment would increase. Interestingly enough, the 'Founder' of this large SCUBA training agency, sold diving equipment for a living and later became the company CEO. At the time, this company just happened to be the World's largest diving equipment manufacturer...

So there you have it. Divers today are trained to a standard that is totally dependent on the technology. In the case of equipment failure, often their training doesn't adequately prepare them for such an eventuality.

In all fairness, there are customers who want to learn to dive so they can be led around by a Divemaster in the clear warm waters of the Caribbean at 15 or 20 feet. They are well equipped and for them their training program is adequate. The program is designed for their needs.

Historically, my customers have been people (largely military) who want more in-depth training. In many ways I'm still old school. Certainly my courses aren't for the non-swimmer or someone who wants to turn-up and be certified. Many want a career in diving with the military or commercial sector, or are into extreme type activities and want to bring-it-on. Fortunately the Agency I teach for allows me to surpass the minimum standards for certification. My 'basic program' runs 45 -50 hours of training and hasn't changed much in content in over 45 years; the science is largely the same. (although I use a chalkboard less). :)
 
Last edited:
A few decades ago, I was a relatively young English teacher who had a class of sophomores in a remedial writing program. All students had poor punctuation skills. I taught them a concentrated, targeted, traditional series of lessons designed to solve that problem once and for all. At the end of weeks of concentrated effort, not a single student showed any improvement. Not one. I concluded they were incapable of learning punctuation.

About a decade later I found myself in exactly the same situation. Having learned my lesson, I completely abandoned that traditional approach and did something entirely different. Within about a week, every single student was proficient at punctuation. Every one. I concluded that the previous class had not learned punctuation despite all that time on task because my instructional methods sucked.

Decades ago, scuba instruction featured long, long lectures. This not only took a very long time, it was ineffective--student retention of information was poor. That gave way to home study followed by instructor review. This cut time considerably, but, more importantly, it greatly improved student retention of information. Now that approach is giving way to online instruction, which takes less class time and features even greater retention of information.

The idea that if it takes longer to do something, it must be better is one of the greatest fallacies in instruction.

In the case of this specific issue, what most readers don't know is that the poster above who talked about his practices has been inactive recently, but has a long, long history in this area, a history to which people are replying rather than that specific post.
 
a history to which people are replying rather than that specific post.
How can one reply to anything other than the post? If the history were relevant, then if it is not in the post it won't be replied to. (How's that for a subjunctive followed by a double negative?)
 

Back
Top Bottom