Have training standards "slipped"?

[MikeFerrara]

After what I saw at Dutch Springs this weekend I tend to agree At the end of my last dive I saw a guy dive bomb off the entry platform right down to the bottom, 15-20ft. maybe. Thing was it looked like he planned on it. He must have big E-tubes We saw an instructor and student on a horizontal line at about 40-50 ft. having some animated buoyancy related difficulties. Looked like someone was getting ready to bolt. Enough to cause us all to pause for a bit to see what might have happened. You could tell when you were around students when you ran into rolling, billowing nuke clouds.

These days, I mostly avoid the public dive sites at least on the weekends because I've seen more than I want to but a few years ago, I remember them putting a new photo album out on the counter at Gilboa. When I browsed through it, something caught my eye. Of all the pictures of divers in the album there was not a single picture of a diver whoe was not solidly planted on the bottom or some structure...NOT ONE!

I've seen the tubes (a huge pile of large sewer pipe) completely engulfed by a rolling cloud of silt. It literally looked like a bomb had gone off. I've seen the plane disapear from site in the same fashion.

Sorry, ig you visit some public sites and watch, you will see that divers who are moving midwater and in control are the exception rather than the rule. Whether these divers survive or not, it's a very strong testament to what divers are being taught.

There have been some that try to suggest that it's just the sites we dive around here but I've got video of diving in Hawaii which is some of the most disgusting stuff I've ever seen, I've seen it on Great Lakes recreational charters (a whole ship can disappear in the silt cloud raised), I've seen it in the Florida springs (you can't get much uglier than Vortex on a weekend)...heck just about everyplace. I haven't notice any real difference from one location to the next.

The instructors we hear from on this board who talk about the buoyancy control they teach ARE the exceptions. Then there are the thousands of others who are only teaching to the letter of the standards and the results are rather clear...or should I say "silty".

 

[ScubaRandy]

Of course but the training and access has become much more accessible. For better or worse, you can line up a cave class and get certified just about as easily as you can get OW certified these days. I'm not saying that we should actively try to keep people out but I think that it's become much more casual. At one time, the training was harder to find and more of those who found it were really interested in caves or really really involved in diving.

I think both the NACD and the NSS used to have a policy of not promoting cave diving. The NACD still had that policy last time I looked but I no longer see it in any NSS-CDS materials. some of those NSS and NACD instructors make a living in diving, own dive shops and actively sell all the classes they can.

Again, I'm not trying to pitch a case for this being good or bad, just that it is the way things are changing.

So it is the popularity of the course that is causing the facial imprints in pristine caves, not the reduction of standards.... Could it also be that the popularity of diving, and not the slippage of standards is what is causing the perceived rise in accidents?

Divers are getting hurt and they are having problems and I have seen plenty of both with my own eyes. I don't neeed CNN to tell me that it's happening. Whether or not it's happening has no bearing on whether or not it's news worthy. What makes it newsworthy is weather or not the news netwerks think it will boost ratings.

Again, is it possible that the popularity of diving is increasing the accident rate?

And yes, news networks will air what they think is going to boost ratings... I've been in the broadcast and cable and Internet media world for over 30 years now, and believe me, they are ALWAYS looking for things to fill the time slots.... It doesn't matter what it is in this day and time, it's anything.

Lots of people go to the beach and the shark stuff is pretty sensational. People can get excited over being on the beach and getting eaten by a shark. Since such a small percentage of the population scuba dives, the whole subject just goes right over their heads and completely escapes their interest. There just isn't anyway to sensationalize it because there just aren't enough people who care one way or the other. It's pretty much off the radar.

Diving is not off the news media's interest... Everything, and I mean everything, is on their radar.... A newspaper writes an article about it.... The article gets picked up by the Associated Press.... case in point, Els Van Doren.... Sky Diver death... There are 555 search results just on that 1 item in Google.... Google SCUBA Deaths, and you get about 580. If scuba divers were dying and being injured at a large rate, then there would be more results, and the news media would swing their focus around to scuba diving....

The news that is reported is always chosen to fit the assumed interests of the audience and the fact that something isn't reported does NOT mean that it isn't happening.

To think that divers aren't having problems because CNN doesn't mention it seems pretty naive especially when out own accidents and incident forums make for such an obvious contradiction.

And you just stated that news is chosen to fit the assumed interest of the audience... We are on a Scuba Diving board.... I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, I'm saying that if more and more people were dying or being injured in scuba diving because of relaxed standards, then the news media would be eating our lunch.... This comes from being around and in the industry for 30+ years.

I'm not being naive about it, I'm just being realistic about it....

Randy

 

[GDI]

Ok I am back and as I said previously it is the instructor that makes the difference.

Have the standards Slipped? was the original question.
I can't say they have really slipped but they most certainly have changed. When you read the various agencies standards from yesterday when compared to today's yes you can see some differences. The older militaristic style of diving was the way classes were taught back then mainly because if you were a diver it was most likely that you recieved your training from a person who served in the armed forces or belonged to a club where the only instructors were military divers. They set the standards at the beginning and it took some time for the sport of diving to evolve from these. Evolution doesn't have to always be a good thing.
Todays divers yes get the lectures of buoyancy more then we did back in earlier dive classes. However the market to meet the demand is not what it was back then so today in this I -want -it -now world we go after things expecting quicker results. No where in an agencies book does it say that you are to have the students kneel for learning. This is just something that was done as a means of controlling the students in what was perceived as a most accomdating position. It has been passed down over the years and in some circles continues to this day. It is common

Diving back then didnt have modules of learning for advancement. There was no OW followed by AOW then rescue etc. You learned how to deco dive from the start. Why because every dive was a deco dive. The skills you learned were done for building confidence just as much as they were done for diving purposes. Ditch and Donning of your full scuba rig taught you to Free ascent as much as the ability to work your equipment underwater. Other then that there was no real diving application for it. (or was there??)

As the modular system of diver education came to be diving took on a new approach. This modular system is in use by every agency today and is widely accepted as a standard for teaching in any educational facility be that university, college or diving programs.

While there are really no different dive skills from one agency to the next there are different secret handshakes and a methodolgy of teaching. The instructor must interpret the standards and apply them to a class setting. If we are to fault the educational system of diver education we need only look at the marketing and the instructors.

The teaching methods of yesterday worked for them because that was the norm and those teaching back then used the model they had available to them. There were bad instructors then as there are now. As equipment changed the standards needed to change. The teaching methodolgy changed as we (apparently) learned that people learned better using a systematic progressive modules approach.

It has been the marketing of the sport and the I-want -it-now mentality that has done the most damage to the diver's skill. I admit that I too started teaching using many of the techniques that I dispise of today. But that was the model from which I had to work with. Admittedly I didn't know any better. As I progressed and learned more I saw a better way of teaching. skills and I have different expectations for the students under my charge.. Today I loose a lot of students because I refuse to do the 3 day wonder course. Yet I can take the very same standards of any agency and teach according to those standards and still turn out good students. I have had classes where instructors attended them and walked away with no c-card. Their skill was not to my expected standard for that course.

Have the standards slipped? I would say no, Have they changed? yes.
Has the marketing changed the sport of diving ? YES and with this change a failure to observe the standards and seek out a better model has caused what I see as a systemic concern. A standard states that the student must master the skill to a defined level. Does the instructor take the time to ensure this? sadly I must say that on the average NO

So I say the standards have not slipped but yes they have changed to meet the current market trends and it is a failure of the instructors to say No you the student are not ready and to evaluate their own skill level.

Today I look back at the system I learned under. There were no modules of advancement or star systems. Today I take much of the older standards and mix it with much of todays. I do not see the entire need for the militaristic approach but I do see some of its benefits and I believe when tempered with todays equipment and science of diving that what was used then is what taught us what to use today.

 

[MikeFerrara]

So it is the popularity of the course that is causing the facial imprints in pristine caves, not the reduction of standards.... Could it also be that the popularity of diving, and not the slippage of standards is what is causing the perceived rise in accidents?

The number of accidents have stayed fairly constant. We don't know what the rate is because we don't know how many actuve divers there are or how many dives they're doing. I would guess that the number of active divers stays fairly constant too because the local dive sites have the same size crowds (although the faces change from year to year) and I don't see new shops or resorts springing up.

However, in recreational diving, we can see the skill level of the divers and we can read the training standards. As far as I can tell the skill level of the divers meets the requirements of the standards and the diving is pretty sloppy. If we wanted to up the skill level, for whatever reason, the training standards would be a good place to start.

If we don't want to raise the skill level, that's fine but, as it is, it's still sloppy.

 

[Thalassamania]

Thank your for the effort that you clearly put into your post.

Ok I am back and as I said previously it is the instructor that makes the difference.

And as the old proverb goes, "a person is known by the company he keeps."

Have the standards Slipped? was the original question.
I can't say they have really slipped but they most certainly have changed. When you read the various agencies standards from yesterday when compared to today's yes you can see some differences. The older militaristic style of diving was the way classes were taught back then mainly because if you were a diver it was most likely that you received your training from a person who served in the armed forces or belonged to a club where the only instructors were military divers.

We grew up in difference places and with different associations. While I don't doubt your remembrances, I never felt any military influence in the diving classes I took, saw or was associated with. The influences were all either academic or recreation department.

They set the standards at the beginning and it took some time for the sport of diving to evolve from these. Evolution doesn't have to always be a good thing.

There I have to disagree, the first national standards for training were those of the YMCA and NAUI. Those standards were put together not by ex-military divers but by a mix of academics, public sector recreation officials and YMCA types leavened with a few pioneer shop owners. There was little or no ex-military diver input to that. In 1966 PADI was founded. The way PADI built their initial rolls (instructor and bank) was to offer an Instructor card to anyone who would mail in $25.00 and some kind of "proof" that they had taught diving (that could be nothing more than a letter from the would-be instructor making the claim). A number of military divers (not always even military instructors) took advantage of this offer upon separation and PADI got a reputation as the most "hard-assed" agency out there. This was amplified by the fact that these instructors got no training or testing from PADI, they got a card and a few pages of minimum standards, which were essentially cribbed from the NAUI and YMCA standards that were already out there. So they taught what they knew, in the way that they had been taught.

Are you starting to get a feel for where the "don't exceed standards" mentality came from? When both training and new diver fatalities skyrocketed in number through the mid and late 1970s it became essential to reign in the Frankenstein monster that PADI had created. PADI successfully stoped their runaway train by creating two levels of instructor, a "scuba instructor" (which everyone already was) and a new "open water instructor" which you had to become to take students into open water. This weeded out the dead wood, the more militaristic butt-heads (and the pets that many instructors certified as a joke). It forced those without previous instructor training to actually get some and the fatality numbers dropped.

Todays divers yes get the lectures of buoyancy more then we did back in earlier dive classes. However the market to meet the demand is not what it was back then so today in this I-want-it-now world we go after things expecting quicker results.

I do not think it was market demand for "I-want-it-now programs" that changed things. I know, I was there, I was contracted by DEMA through NAUI to test an 18hr course back in the mid 1980s. Let me describe what w. as going on. During the 1980s there was on ongoing battle within PADI, NAUI and YMCA. Pecuniary Industry interests representing the manufacturers (most, not all ... but especially USD) and some powerful shop owners were arrayed against the very academic and recreation types who had founded the training community. These industry interests wanted shorter courses feeling that this was a more profitable approach. PADI at the time was controlled by John Cronin (the CEO of USD) who took advantage of the retraining of all PADI Instructors to rewrite history (always using just a grain of truth ... the proven way) and create the very prejudices and misconceptions that many suffer under today (e.g., old fashioned militaristic training, shorter training was to meet public demand, etc.).

No where in an agencies book does it say that you are to have the students kneel for learning. This is just something that was done as a means of controlling the students in what was perceived as a most accommodating position. It has been passed down over the years and in some circles continues to this day. It is common.

Here I have to agree with you. It was common years ago and it is common today. While there have always been small groups of instructors that looked down on it, there seems to be a concentration of them on the SB, the reality is that it was (and is) rather standard amongst (shall we say) the non-cognisenti.

Diving back then didn't have modules of learning for advancement. There was no OW followed by AOW then rescue etc. You learned how to deco dive from the start. Why because every dive was a deco dive. The skills you learned were done for building confidence just as much as they were done for diving purposes. Ditch and Donning of your full scuba rig taught you to Free ascent as much as the ability to work your equipment underwater. Other then that there was no real diving application for it. (or was there??).

The "Basic" course was as you describe it and it included rescue skills. Actual staged decompression was prohibited by standards.

As the modular system of diver education came to be diving took on a new approach. This modular system is in use by every agency today and is widely accepted as a standard for teaching in any educational facility be that university, college or diving programs.

Here I must part company with you. The modular system has little or no acceptance within university and college diving programs, save those that are identical to shop classes (e.g., run as "activity classes" in PE Departments or contracted out to local dive shops.).

While there are really no different dive skills from one agency to the next there are different secret handshakes and a methodology of teaching. The instructor must interpret the standards and apply them to a class setting. If we are to fault the educational system of diver education we need only look at the marketing and the instructors.

I have minor disagreement with your first sentence, but much of that difference sorts out when you combine enough "modules" into what I'd consider a reasonably complete class.[/quote]

The teaching methods of yesterday worked for them because that was the norm and those teaching back then used the model they had available to them. There were bad instructors then as there are now. As equipment changed the standards needed to change. The teaching methodology changed as we (apparently) learned that people learned better using a systematic progressive modules approach.

Here we part company completely. I can guarantee you that the teaching methodologies that I learned in the late 1960s and early 1970s still work just fine and accommodate the changes in equipment and skills with no problem. Again I was there, I know the people, I was in the middle of the discussions ... I tell you that the "systematic progressive modules approach" was in reality a "new math" smoke and mirror show developed over many years by highly skilled and talented individuals such as Nick Icorn, Al Hornsby, and Harry Averill all of whose marching orders were to reduce dependence on a skilled instructor and under the guise of better" and more "modern" system for training divers develop shorter and cheaper courses. It was a brilliant ploy, other agencies were faced with the dilemma of having to meet the shortened, cheaper courses (note, shorter and cheaper, but with the course name) or be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage and left "behind" conducting the "old-fashioned" and "militaristic" programs that were, in fact, more the hallmark of the earlier PADI than the other agencies. Spurred by these concerns and industry interests that were fifth columns within their organization NAUI capitulated and so did YMCA.

(continued)

 

[Thalassamania]

(Continued)

It has been the marketing of the sport and the I-want -it-now mentality that has done the most damage to the diver's skill. I admit that I too started teaching using many of the techniques that I despise of today. But that was the model from which I had to work with. Admittedly I didn't know any better. As I progressed and learned more I saw a better way of teaching. skills and I have different expectations for the students under my charge.. Today I loose a lot of students because I refuse to do the 3 day wonder course. Yet I can take the very same standards of any agency and teach according to those standards and still turn out good students. I have had classes where instructors attended them and walked away with no c-card. Their skill was not to my expected standard for that course.

Bravo, the insights that you show in your post (even those we don't agree on) mark you as far from run of the mill. You hit the nail on the head when you say "I too started teaching using many of the techniques that I despise of today. But that was the model from which I had to work with. Admittedly I didn't know any better." Unfortunately few instructors ever know any better, because they often become instructors with 100 dives (and how many are tea-bag dives?) and most quit the industry, disillusioned, in three years or less.

Have the standards slipped? I would say no, Have they changed? yes.
Has the marketing changed the sport of diving ? YES and with this change a failure to observe the standards and seek out a better model has caused what I see as a systemic concern. A standard states that the student must master the skill to a defined level. Does the instructor take the time to ensure this? sadly I must say that on the average NO.

Bravo, but ... it looks slippage to me, feels like slippage to me, tastes like slippage to me ... sure am glad I didn't step in it.

So I say the standards have not slipped but yes they have changed to meet the current market trends and it is a failure of the instructors to say No you the student are not ready and to evaluate their own skill level.

So I say the standards have slipped to meet the short-sighted perceived economic needs of the manufacturers and shop owners who created a group of instructors who (as you observe) can't say, "No you the student are not ready," and can't evaluate their own skill level, and furthermore are lead to believe, by a pyramid scheme of training ranks, that the emperor is fully clothed.

Today I look back at the system I learned under. There were no modules of advancement or star systems. Today I take much of the older standards and mix it with much of todays. I do not see the entire need for the militaristic approach but I do see some of its benefits and I believe when tempered with todays equipment and science of diving that what was used then is what taught us what to use today.

Today I look back at the system I learned under too. And like you I see that there were no modules or stars. But there was also no militaristic approach and the course I teach today, with minor adjustments for changes in gear, is same course as "way back when." Keep in mind that the "modules" were invented to pemit the swapping of instructors in mid course, not to improve training.

Thank you for a thoughtfully and informative post. I know that there is as much truth in what you say from your perspective, as I will tell you there is in what I say, from mine.

There is always a bit of the "blind men describing the elephant" in these discussions in as much was we only have our own experiences and perceptions to go on. I hope that we can continue and perhaps each of us will come to know more of the totality.

 

[Walter]

While there are really no different dive skills from one agency to the next

Oh, but there are.

For example in the entry level class (Open water for PADI & YMCA, SCUBA Diver for NAUI):

PADI and YMCA require breathing from a free flowing regulator (YMCA actually picked up this skill from PADI in 2000), NAUI does not.

NAUI requires recovery of a simulated unconscious diver from the bottom, PADI and YMCA do not.

YMCA requires rescue of a simulated panicked victim on the surface, NAUI and PADI do not.

There are other examples of skills required by some agencies, but not others.

 

[The Chairman]

YMCA requires rescue of a simulated panicked victim on the surface, NAUI and PADI do not.

This is required by NAUI.

NAUI SHOULD require breathing on a freeflowing reg, at least they allow us to add that to our course.

NAUI should do away with the CESA requirement. It is too harsh on the instructor and teaches the WRONG thing to the student.

 

[Walter]

YMCA requires rescue of a simulated panicked victim on the surface, NAUI and PADI do not.

This is required by NAUI.

Not unless it was added in the last 5 years, although I'm sure you teach it regardless.

NAUI SHOULD require breathing on a freeflowing reg

They should also require no mask breathing.

at least they allow us to add that to our course.

Yet another difference between agencies. Not only does NAUI allow you to add it, they allow you to require it. YMCA and NAUI have that in common. PADI allows instructors to teach additional skills, but not to require them

 

[MikeFerrara]

Yet another difference between agencies. Not only does NAUI allow you to add it, they allow you to require it. YMCA and NAUI have that in common. PADI allows instructors to teach additional skills, but not to require them

If you read the PADI instructor training materials in addition to the standards, I don't think you can really conclude that PADI condones that addition of skills.

We have to be careful how we define "additional skills" though. For instance, the only kick that PADI requires is a flutter kick. I wouldn't hesitate to add additional kicks but finning is already a required skill. I think you can add trim because it's part of nuetral swimming and hovering which is required. You can teach types of entry that are appropriate to the environment but entries are already required...and so on.

On the other hand, a skill like shooting a bag is not required and based on what I know about the PADI system I would absolutely NOT DARE to add it. Sould a student get hurt shooting a bag, you would be completely on your own defending your reasons for introducing that skill with nothing anywhere in PADI standards to back your case. Likewise I would never add a skill like surfacing an unconsious diver to a PADI OW class. I don't think that PADI legal or the insurance company would stuck with you here either.

So, no, PADI does not really want you adding skills. The instructor has some room when it comes to methods or how he/she determines mastery but they intend that you use the skill lists in the standards.

In fact, regardless of agency, I would read the standards AND your insurance policy VERY carefully before adding skills.