... Just out of curiosity the 12-20 dives to get certified to 30' with a like buddy, where does that fit in with boat diving at sites where bottom depth is say 100 ft'. Should they be there or not.
In the scientific diving community we tend to restrict Blue Water Diving (open ocean, no bottom to speak of) to divers who hold a 60' card (meaning that if there were a 100 foot diver serving as pivot diver they'd be "legal" to 100 feet. It is really a question of buoyancy control and basic diving skills.
BCDC wrote
BCDC, are you saying that, for example, a diver that can reliably, comfortably and repeatedly demonstrate the various diving skills where you are teaching "may be unfit to dive" where you are teaching?
At least in "PADI Land" the skills needed to be "mastered" are (in part):
1. Mask clearing/mask remove/replace;
2. Air sharing ascent;
3. Hovering/buoyancy control;
4. CESA;
5. Simple surface and underwater compass navigation (out/back);
6. Simple surface rescue skills (tows, cramping, snorkel use/control);
7. Descend and ascend under control at a set rate;
8. Plan the dive, do weight and buddy checks.
These "skills" must be demonstrated in a comfortable, reliable and repeatable manner in Open Water and if they are done in the local conditions, why isn't that student capable of doing a simple open water dive?
Why?
Because of the linear thinking that is part and parcel of such lists.
The issue is not a question of whether the diver can perform each of the eight listed skills, "in a comfortable, reliable and repeatable manner." The real world issue relates more to the problems represented by the interactive terms of skills when they must be performed simultaneously. The ability to, say, clear a mask has little to do with the problem faced by a diver who must clear a mask whilst controlling buoyancy, whilst sharing air, during an emergency ascent. "Mastery" of skills (even using PADI's Orwellian re-definition of the term) does not translate to the "mastery" required for coincident application of multiple skills.
For any instructors out there following this thread, in your opinions, how many times on average does a typical student need to do the above to "master" them? (Of course I know the word "master" may not be clearly defined.) For example, do you ask a student to do one mask remove/replace/clear? Three times? Five times?
I'm not sure how many times one needs to do something to master it but I read somewhere on one of these threads that on average, a person would need to do something 15 or so times to truly master it. That may or may not be true but I would think most folks would agree that to "master" something you would need to demonstrate it more than once. Are there any instructors out there that ask their students to do any of these skills at least 3 -5 times?
There are simple skills that might require no repetitions, that a simple explanation might be sufficient, there are others that might require a large number of repetitions. The only work I know of that directly addresses the question suggests that on the order of 20 repetitions are needed to be able to have 95% confidence that the next repetition will be accomplished perfectly.
I believe you are referring to the Egstorm study that buddy breathing had to be done successfully 17-21 times to be considered mastered. Others have argued that he was actually referring to any complex task, but that is not how I read it originally. Some people have used that study as saying that many repetitions are needed for ANY task to be learned, and that is simply not true.
The number of times a task needs to be performed for mastery depends upon the difficulty of the task and the natural ability of the student. Purging a regulator certainly does not take 15 tries for anyone. Clearing the mask is simple for some but more difficult for others. When I took my first scuba lesson, I cleared my mask easily the first time I tried it and never had a problem with it after that. Others take a lot longer.
There is no way a number can be put on it. You simply keep at it until you are satisfied the student has it done well enough to be able to do it successfully whenever it is needed. If the student struggles with mask clearing and finally gets it done with some effort, then the student is not there yet and needs more repetitions.
Point of Information (maybe just typo?) That's: "
Egstrom."
Anyway, Glen was using buddy breathing as a "place holder" for any moderately complex task, and his criteria for a "success" was somewhat arbitrary also, but the point was made: just doing something once, twice or even three times is no guarantee.
...
Perhaps it is time to drop the phrase "master" or "mastery" if that is indeed how PADI or any other agency describes what level a student is to obtain in the OW class.
Long past time, it should never have been used in the first place.
I believe the 17-21 is true. It has to be tempered in so far as it takes 17-21 with no prior exposure to the skill. for instance mask clearing. a student may have been a snorkler prior to taking the ow class. the finning and mask clearing process of 17-21 has already been done. The student demonstrates it once and is passed on the skill for having demonstraitng the required minimum level of proficiency.
Again, we are confusing a "skill" with an "exercise" (a combination of skills). I am not sure exactly how mastery of a skill translate to success at an exercise. There must be some relationship, but quantifying it has not, as far as I know, been done. At the limits, a single skill should be fairly easy, but it is possible to combine a sufficient number such simple skills into an exercise that even if all the individual skills were to be mastered, the diver would still fail at the exercise. Real world performance will, of course, lie somewhere in between.
Since there has been some question about what Mastery of a skill is under the PADI system, here is their definition~
During confined and open water dives, mastery is defined as performing the skill so it meets the stated performance requirements in a reasonably comfortable, fluid, repeatable manner as would be expected of a diver at that certification level.
Commiting such violence upon the English languge disturbs me, both as a diving instructor and as an English speaker.
Here are the PADI standards:
In confined water dive #1, the diver is supposed to clear a partially flooded mask.
In confined water dive #2, the diver is supposed to remove and replace a mask underwater.
In confined water dive #4, the diver is supposed to swim without a mask for at least 50 feet and then replace it.
In open water dive #2, the diver is supposed to clear a partially flooded mask.
In open water dive #2, the diver is supposed to clear a fully flooded mask.
In open water dive #3, the diver is supposed to clear a fully flooded mask again.
In open water dive #4, the diver is supposed to remove and replace the mask.
Thus, a student who shows full mastery from the start--and many do--must clear a mask a minimum of 7 times in PADI training. A student who is having trouble will do it many more times than that.
If you only did it two times, then your class constituted a gross violation of standards, and you should do the scuba industry a favor and report that instructor immediately.
That is true, but needs to be conceptually extended a bit. There are many opportunities to develop the mask clearing skill to a point of "mastery" but that is no assurance that a diver will be able to deal with a flooded mask while sharing air, etc.
I was actually thinking of the remove/replace/clear task as I described in my post. So it looks like you only are required to do that three times according to your schedule. I may have very well done it three times so I'll hold off reporting my instructor. Now I know for sure we only did one vertical emergency accent. How many times do you have your students do that? Just curious.
Since, in the end, we combine a scuba doff and don with buddy breathing and a buoyant ascent I would not be surprised if most students clocked fifty to a hundred (or even more) repetitions of the skills (mask remove and replace, weight belt remove and replace, surface dive, buddy breathe, rig removal and replace, buoyant ascent, hand signals, etc.) in various combinations and permutations.
You are required to do act as both receiver and donor in making the exchange 3 times in CW and OW, for a total of 6 exchanges. In the pool you simulate an ascent by swimming together for a minute following 2 exchanges, one as donor and one as a receiver. In the OW exercise, you have two exchanges, and you ascend once.
I'd say that's too few, I suspect that Glen would agree.
What’s being overlooked is that the demographic of the WWW customer has changed: today, there’s a far more frequent expectation that there is going to be an in-water DM to supervise them on every dive. Why? That's up for discussion. It wasn't always this way, and if we want to put the 'macho' label on those divers who are confident and capable of diving unsupervised (and aren't looking for the DM), what we are really saying through our choice of language is that the "New Normal" is now being defined as a dependent diver, because those that now the ones who aren't get an anomalous/negative descriptive label (such as 'wimp').
While the demographic may change, the ocean does not, nor does human anatomy and physiology. Supervision can be traded off against skill and knowledge, to a degree, but the reality of that trade off has not been acknowledged by any of the training agencies.
IMO, the 'local conditions' statement is purposefully vague, since if the Agencies were to clearly articulate what this means in detail, then the Agencies would "own" it and be legally liable if it were found to be deficient. By mentioning it (as ambiguous as it is), they pin this rose on the individual instructor to figure out ... and incur the resultant legal liability thereof. Thanks, buddy! And this isn't doing the instructor a favor at all, since it adds to his fundamental conflict of interest: he is motivated by financial realities of business to minimize his costs (cost of training), yet here he has been given a requirement with no clear minimum standard to defend himself with.
They also don't want to spell it out for fear of losing a competitive position. Can you imagine trying to market a, "I'm not really a diver, I need a nanny" certification? Even if it is the case?
Where WWW enters into this is twofold. First, the Agencies can use that benign environment as the demonstration baseline for just how "minimal" a course can be, and all of the additional issues/expenses of local environments elsewhere get a hand-waive dismissal as a "local problem". Second, the instructors in these WWW environments are unlikely to get a prompt reality check on just how well the student candidates really were prepared. As such, their graduates are out the door and get 20+ WWW dives under their belt, which makes any future liability lawsuit more challenging to find fault with the original instruction's adequacy.
That, and the fact that few instructors have any idea of how may of their students (especially in the case of O/W referrals) get the crap scared out of them and stop diving.
Very little "may" in that: the warmwater diver will be unprepared and they'll have additional stressors from the introduction of new/different work taskloading elements. This is the consequence of where the standards are currently set, since all of coldwater (no matter how mild) now falls under the 'local conditions' loophole and not identified as a necessary part of a standard training class.
Very little "may."
YMMV, but that sounds like an admission that the 'plan' is to rely on luck.
True, true.
Don't need to think about it: perhaps you'll still recall my comment from one of the lost posts: an experienced WWW diver incurred uncontrolled ascents on 2 of 3 dives in one day because they changed to wearing heavier thermal protection (a single piece 5mm) than what they were used to, which resulted in larger buoyancy changes from wetsuit compression.
Maintaining good buoyancy control, with a thick suit, is, IMHO, a "complex skill." That throws the question back into the 20 more repetitions, with an open question of what a "repetition" is. I'd suggest, from years of observation, that a "repetition" is likely the same thing as standards define as a "dive."
DCBC -- to return to your case. Remember, YOU are the instructor who is teaching in YOUR local waters and having the basic open water student demonstrate those items I listed (which as I stated is NOT an exhaustive list within "PADI Land").
I suggest that what needs to be added, for the North Atlantic coast of Canada and the NorCal coast, is more than what might be reasonably described as an "enhancement" or "embellishment."
It is true that sub-surface diver recovery is listed but it is also true that no one, not even Thal, has stated such a "skill" is actually relevant to the basic open water diver. You've even stated that in your vast experience, you've only been involved in 3 (count them 3) such situations and at least one of them was during a technical dive (you, as I recall, stated you were on a 'breather). Come on, this IS basic open water training for crying out loud.
So now we're at five cases that DCBC and I can (alone) cite. But even so I don't see that the value of a submerged diver rescue exercise is in preparing the student to rescue a diver in such a situation, the odds are against an encounter requiring such a response, the value is the practice of applying a large suite of skills to a task and in the fact that it relieves a concern that many students raise.
You state that what was omitted was "strong watermanship" -- but what IS "strong watermanship?" In your local circumstances, would not doing all of the various surface skills "comfortably, reliably and repeatedly in the manner of an open water diver" show "strong watermanship?" If not, what more is needed?
Again, the issue is less the performance of the individual skills and more in demonstrating the ease and comfort required to perform a number of such skills together in a rough and challenging environment.
...
I ask again, IF the student can do all of the a fore mentioned skills, reliably, comfortably and repeatedly while in conditions that consist of "Rocky shoreline, surf, currents, waves, at times poor visibility, very cold water (often 29-34 degree F) and the largest tidal exchanges on the planet." wouldn't that person be OK to go diving in those same or better conditions?
No.
Interesting misconception. What do you base this on? Here in the Keys, only a few charters provide free in water "guides". They aren't even considered DMs either, just guides. There are a few resort destinations that require a guide, but they are supposed to be keeping their reefs safe. In reality, it's more of a ruse to keep unemployment down for the locals.
Then things have radically changed in the decade since I left there.
It's hard to believe that a diver of your experience and credentials with the position you hold would resort to ordinary PADI bashing... or are you no longer the CEO of CMAS Canada and feel that it's right to go back to PADI bashing again? That game is for children, Wayne. Seriously.
I guess "bashing" must be in the eye of the beholder, I did not see any, but then I'm not feeling defensive about the issue either.
Yes, what Wayne says here is true, PADI instructors are somewhat restricted in the material that they can add to the course. PADI chose to approach their method like this to stop old school instructors from doing whatever they felt like doing and issuing a PADI cert for it. In the late 1960's when the system was developed this was probably a relevant and reasonable thing to do. It has it's down side though.
That is the oft repeated party line, too bad that it's simply not true.
The downside is that PADI instructors can't add just anything to their course. For example, they would consider it "over teaching" to put body recovery (i.e., sub surface non-responsive diver lift) into the OW course. It's in the rescue course and PADI's opinion, even if not shared by the instructor, is that this is where it belongs. You can like it or you can not like it, but that's where it is. If you are a PADI instructor, you have to accept this
The addition of most any exercise (e.g., combination of skills) would get you into the question of "over teaching." You guys continue to argue over the fine points and the details, and that is not really relevant. The point is that PADI attempts to restrict what may be added to a course and other agencies, like NAUI, do not. There are many arguments that can be made as to how and why this is the case, but that does not change the facts ... it is the case.
What Wayne does NOT tell you in his posts is that PADI instructors have a lot more leeway than you might think. His PADI bash revolves around trying to get people to believe that a PADI instructor is FORCED to teach to MINIMUM standards. This simply isn't true. We've told him this a million times but he doesn't believe it and he keeps trying to pull the proverbial wool over people's eyes.
You're splitting hairs. From where I sit the tiny bit of maneuver room permitted by PADI, when compared to the almost carte blanche afforded by other agencies, is rather insufficient, especially when it comes to the use of non-PADI promulgated exercises and the reordering of skills and exercises. I've often wondered what it is that PADI knows about their instructor cadre that leads them to display such a lack of trust.
