Does this make sense to any of you?

[MXGratefulDiver]

Your profile lists SDI/TDI as well.

Of course it does ... I've taken SDI/TDI classes. It lists GUE, IANTD and YMCA too ... does that somehow make me an instructor for all those agencies? Don't make assumptions ... you know what they say about that ...

Everythings not always black and white. Every recreational agency (including NAUI) has it's good and bad points. I don't agree with everything PADI does, as I'm sure you don't agree with everything NAUI does. That doesn't give you the right to trash an agency. :no

In no way did I trash an agency ... not my style, and in more than six years of active participation on this board you will not find one single post by me where I trashed any agency. I simply pointed out something that's obvious ... most agencies require five or more dives for OW certification. PADI requires four.

Actually, if you pay attention when you read the article it states that the 96-foot dive was their fourth dive of the class (one on day one, two on day two, and this was the first dive of three on day three). Even by PADI's standards ... which are lower than most other agencies with respect to the number of dives required for certification ... they need four dives to become certified. So if the article is accurate, these were not yet certified divers.

That's nothing more than an observation of fact.

I have seen people who don't follow standards and no matter which agency, they won't be around long.

I have found that it depends entirely on how much money they represent to the agency in question ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[sweatfrog]

Of course it does ... I've taken SDI/TDI classes. It lists GUE, IANTD and YMCA too ... does that somehow make me an instructor for all those agencies?

It certainly could, especially since you didn't list what agency you're an Instructor with, in your profile.

In no way did I trash an agency ... not my style, and in more than six years of active participation on this board you will not find one single post by me where I trashed any agency. I simply pointed out something that's obvious ... most agencies require five or more dives for OW certification. PADI requires four.

Most agencies use 4 scuba dives and 1 skin dive. If memory serves, I think NAUI does have one more, which can be accomplished by a NAUI professional. It doesn't have to be an Instructor.

That's a whole different issue, since I'm of the opinion that the student is paying the Instructor for the class, not the assistant.

I have found that it depends entirely on how much money they represent to the agency in question ...

That's one factor, among many from which to choose. However, it's not the only one and not always #1.

 

[emttim]

Out of curiosity, how does the different certification standards, or who's an instructor of what, even have any impact on the topic of this thread? So PADI requires one or two less dives, big deal. I'm sure there's certified divers from every agency who should have never gotten cert'd; I doubt one or two extra dives makes that much of a difference.

As far as the topic goes, I'd say the agency the instructor is with is not nearly as important as the dive site the instructor took the students to. Although if you want to deteriorate this thread into another this agency vs. that agency, be my guest.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

It certainly could, especially since you didn't list what agency you're an Instructor with, in your profile.

Then why'd you make this statement?

Originally Posted by sweatfrog
Now that's hilarious. Especially when it's coming from an SDI Instructor.

Obviously you made an assumption ... a wrong one, it turns out. Actually, you made a few wrong assumptions ... but that's another digression we really don't need to get into.

Most agencies use 4 scuba dives and 1 skin dive. If memory serves, I think NAUI does have one more, which can be accomplished by a NAUI professional. It doesn't have to be an Instructor.

Your memory isn't correct ... but I'll let you do your own research.

That's a whole different issue, since I'm of the opinion that the student is paying the Instructor for the class, not the assistant.
That's one factor, among many from which to choose. However, it's not the only one and not always #1.

You're right ... that's a whole different issue.

Out of curiosity, how does the different certification standards, or who's an instructor of what, even have any impact on the topic of this thread?

Something I said got taken out of context and misinterpreted. Certification standards have nothing to do with the topic.

So PADI requires one or two less dives, big deal. I'm sure there's certified divers from every agency who should have never gotten cert'd; I doubt one or two extra dives makes that much of a difference.

Well, here's the point ... if my read on the article is correct, these kids weren't even OW certified, which means taking them to 96 feet was a serious standards violation. Even if they were OW certified, unless they went directly into AOW class, it's STILL a standards violation. And even if they went directly into AOW class, it's questionable judgment to take them that deep that soon.

If there's a diver out there who can safely go that deep on only their 4th dive, I haven't yet met him or her ... and I'm highly skeptical that they exist. Sure it's possible ... unless anything goes wrong. Then you'd better hope to hell that they REALLY paid attention to their classwork and have a better than average handle on stress control. Otherwise, you ... as an instructor ... have a serious problem to deal with.

I prefer an approach that teaches the best way to manage risk is to not put yourself into situations that you're unprepared to deal with.

As far as the topic goes, I'd say the agency the instructor is with is not nearly as important as the dive site the instructor took the students to.

Regardless of the dive site or the conditions, you've still got 96 feet of water over your head ... and if something goes wrong that causes that kid to decide to bolt, it's still an awful long way to the surface.

Although if you want to deteriorate this thread into another this agency vs. that agency, be my guest.

No thanks ... that's not the horse I was placing my bet on ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[emttim]

Well, here's the point ... if my read on the article is correct, these kids weren't even OW certified, which means taking them to 96 feet was a serious standards violation. Even if they were OW certified, unless they went directly into AOW class, it's STILL a standards violation. And even if they went directly into AOW class, it's questionable judgment to take them that deep that soon.

If there's a diver out there who can safely go that deep on only their 4th dive, I haven't yet met him or her ... and I'm highly skeptical that they exist. Sure it's possible ... unless anything goes wrong. Then you'd better hope to hell that they REALLY paid attention to their classwork and have a better than average handle on stress control. Otherwise, you ... as an instructor ... have a serious problem to deal with.

I prefer an approach that teaches the best way to manage risk is to not put yourself into situations that you're unprepared to deal with.

I was referring primarily to the amount of dives that it takes for one to get certified with the unspoken assumption that those dives were made within the limits of that person's training. If a person is not even a certified diver yet, and is just a student, I agree 100% that it is irresponsible and outright dangerous to take an OW student to 96 feet. Standards violations or not (if there was any, that's a whole different can of worms), that's just not a good idea.

Regardless of the dive site or the conditions, you've still got 96 feet of water over your head ... and if something goes wrong that causes that kid to decide to bolt, it's still an awful long way to the surface.

Agreed. I'll take your guys' word for it that a runaway ascent is a more likely risk in this scenario versus a runaway descent, but regardless, I'm in agreement that this article is an example of conditions that OW students should /not/ be allowed to dive until they are sufficiently prepared for them.

I know some people learn faster than others, but I've picked up this sport pretty quickly, and I'm just now becoming comfortable enough that I would go to 96 feet in those kinds of conditions. On certification dive #3 or #4 if the instructor told me we were going that deep without any bottom in sight underneath us, I would probably have dropped the class. I know some people don't know any better, but there's a big difference between acceptable risk and suicide; I think that situation is the latter.

 

[Thalassamania]

Come now Thass... this is the internet! Get with the program... no homework, no exams
Rick

Yeah, I guess your right. The realm of dumb, dumber and dumbest, I keep forgetting (that's my mental problem ... what's your excuse?).

 

[Saltwater Junky]

Woa...this is a heated discussion. I do not agree with the fast track certification as decribed in the article. I have heard of resorts offering certifications. I'm curious if those are fast track cert's as well.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Woa...this is a heated discussion. I do not agree with the fast track certification as decribed in the article. I have heard of resorts offering certifications. I'm curious if those are fast track cert's as well.

"Resort course" is synonymous with fast-track certification ... nobody wants to spend any more of their limited vacation time than they have to in class. "Fast" is the appeal of such courses. I've spent remedial time with several graduates of those classes ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

Well, here's the point ... if my read on the article is correct, these kids weren't even OW certified, which means taking them to 96 feet was a serious standards violation. Even if they were OW certified, unless they went directly into AOW class, it's STILL a standards violation. And even if they went directly into AOW class, it's questionable judgment to take them that deep that soon.

If there's a diver out there who can safely go that deep on only their 4th dive, I haven't yet met him or her ... and I'm highly skeptical that they exist. Sure it's possible ... unless anything goes wrong. Then you'd better hope to hell that they REALLY paid attention to their classwork and have a better than average handle on stress control. Otherwise, you ... as an instructor ... have a serious problem to deal with.(Grateful Diver)

For a change, I'm posting an agreement with Walter (not that I've never agreed with Walter, I just don't normally post it).

My read of the article is that they were certified divers when they did the wall dive and they were not doing a training dive. As I understand it, PADI standards apply to training dives only. Charter operators and charter insurance carriers may or may not restrict depth on guided dives in the same way the agencies restrict it on training dives. As written, I do not see a Standards violation.

Sometime between age 8 and 10, my father took me to ~100' in a Northern Idaho lake. He was who taught me to dive, although he was not a dive instructor and I don't know who/how he learned. He had also taught me to free climb, shoot rapids and ski steep and deep by that age, although he was not an instructor in any of those adventures and I don't know who/how he learned.

It was too cold for my vest, so it was a bounce dive, with me quickly returning to 25'. At 6' I am the shortest male in the previous and current generations of my family (tied with my dad). Uncles and brother all 2-3" taller, but I smoked pot in the formative years so one dive to 100' is not likely the reason I'm so short.

When I finally got certified, my classmates and I did a non-guided 90'+ dive for our first dive after class, and I think this happens regularly. I counsel my new divers to be smart and not let peer pressure force them deep before they are prepared (and I rarely tell them about that dive).

There are plenty of us who survived years of 60' per minute ascents with no safety stops, as well as numerous CESA's with j-valve tanks. Today's diving is safer and more conservative, but to a certain extent the numbers are set by lawyers and doctors looking at a bunch of numbers and making reasonable guesses.

I am not saying I would guide such a dive, but I'm not saying I have not seen 13 year olds who could easily do that dive on dive 5. When I do tricks off the waterfall cliffs past Hana, Maui, with a bunch of tourists and their children watching, I am not setting a very good example for the average person to follow. Many of those same tricks at a swimming pool will get me grounded by the lifeguard.

Everyone has to make personal decisions as to what is acceptable risk for themselves. Good parenting means instilling this in your kids at an early age. If they are prone to bad decisions, don't let them off the leash! The article may be irresponsible in many eyes, but it's not as bad as many.

Recent dive travel articles in one of the mainstream dive mags have out and out lies, untruths and bs, but nobody really cares. I actually think this article is truer than most.

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/hawai-i-o-hana/231914-maui-oahu-insider-s-guide-oahu-questions.html

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/hawai-i-o-hana/231924-maui-oahu-insider-s-guide-maui-questions.html

 

[scubadiver888]

"Resort course" is synonymous with fast-track certification ... nobody wants to spend any more of their limited vacation time than they have to in class. "Fast" is the appeal of such courses. I've spent remedial time with several graduates of those classes ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Bob,

You shouldn't speak in absolutes. "Most people" or "many people" okay. "Nobody" not okay. I was certified at a resort. The instructor was only willing to certify me if I was going to be there for more than one week. He also fail one of us because he guy wasn't taking it seriously.

I will admit that this is the exception and not the norm but there are usually exceptions to everything.

Darrell