Master Scuba Diver Certification

[Aquatic Eagle]

To me, it's kind of like taking all the college classes needed for an Associates Degree, for example, then deciding that you don't need the degree for a job, and the degree itself isn't a class that teaches you anything new, and that since applying for and getting the degree might cost a fee (don't know offhand whether it does, but for this example let's say it's a $50 fee), you don't need it.

It's very different from that actually. To use your comparison, PADI MSD is more like having the option to take 60 elective credits in whatever fun subjects you want, neglecting things like English 101, History, Algebra, Biology, etc. and then applying for an Associates degree.

Accredited institutions require those core subjects because they are important to a well-rounded and college-educated student. By awarding an Associates degree they are showing that you have learned core and important information. What would be the point of college degrees if they had no foundation in important and critical subject areas and only allowed someone to take fun and useless courses for two years?

Is it really fair that while one diver takes rescue, buoyancy, deep, navigation, night and search/recovery to earn MSD another diver can take rescue, naturalist, photography, Nat. Geo. diver, shark diver, and Fish ID to earn MSD? Which one of these divers is truly closer to being a Master Scuba Diver?

Any MSD program offered by an agency that doesn't have an actual course involved and only is awarded because of a minimum number of plastic cards should be called "Experienced Diver" at most and certainly not "Master Scuba Diver".

 

[TMHeimer]

It's very different from that actually. To use your comparison, PADI MSD is more like having the option to take 60 elective credits in whatever fun subjects you want, neglecting things like English 101, History, Algebra, Biology, etc. and then applying for an Associates degree.

Accredited institutions require those core subjects because they are important to a well-rounded and college-educated student. By awarding an Associates degree they are showing that you have learned core and important information. What would be the point of college degrees if they had no foundation in important and critical subject areas and only allowed someone to take fun and useless courses for two years?

Is it really fair that while one diver takes rescue, buoyancy, deep, navigation, night and search/recovery to earn MSD another diver can take rescue, naturalist, photography, Nat. Geo. diver, shark diver, and Fish ID to earn MSD? Which one of these divers is truly closer to being a Master Scuba Diver?

Any MSD program offered by an agency that doesn't have an actual course involved and only is awarded because of a minimum number of plastic cards should be called "Experienced Diver" at most and certainly not "Master Scuba Diver".

While it has been pointed out to me (not that I agree completely) that comparing any scuba courses to college degree programs is not the best analogy, I do completely agree with you about the differences in the specialties. Back to my question a few posts back- How would you compare the material learned with 5 PADI "hard core" specialties to the actual dive sessions done with NAUI MSD (leaving out the academics of the NAUI course, and assuming the same instructor teaches you both programs)?

 

[Herk_Man]

While I see your point, I would argue that there are different areas of mastery. Just because one person does more safety related courses doesn't make him more of a master of diving as there are areas that he is also weak in (e.g. fish I.D.) To truly be a master I would say that a diver should have to be qualified in the entire gamut. This would remove all doubt.

But just like I would consider someone who is well known for their fish I.D. course and the great dives they lead to teach other this knowledge a 'master', I would also consider someone skilled in the art of leading and teaching cave diving a 'master.' Yet I wouldn't ask either of them to attempt to teach the other's specialty.

I would go as far as to say that someone that achieves either area of mastery is most likely pretty good at scuba in general. Not saying that there aren't exceptions but in general.

 

[Aquatic Eagle]

While it has been pointed out to me (not that I agree completely) that comparing any scuba courses to college degree programs is not the best analogy, I do completely agree with you about the differences in the specialties. Back to my question a few posts back- How would you compare the material learned with 5 PADI "hard core" specialties to the actual dive sessions done with NAUI MSD (leaving out the academics of the NAUI course, and assuming the same instructor teaches you both programs)?

I would imagine that the actual dives are similar, depending on the instructor. I see on the PADI site that for Underwater Navigator they must do underwater map-making and navigation patterns. We did something similar for my MSD except the navigation patterns were in 0-1 ft. visibility where the only thing we could see was the slate and compass in front of us. We did a square, double square, triangle and double triangle in near zero vis. I don't know if the PADI standards allow for that but I assure you it was much more reliant on navigational skills since there were no landmarks to look at.

My main thing with the whole MSD thing is the academics. Sure the dives are incredibly important because they focus on the diver's underwater skills and comfort but the academics are what make a diver truly a master in the sport. Everyone gets introduced to Boyle's Law, Henry's Law, Charles' Law, Archimedes' Principle, etc. but most people forget which one is which or why they are important to a diver. The NAUI course (at least mine) focuses strongly on mastering, not just learning, diving physics so that you can not only dive but truly understand the science behind it. NAUI also puts strong focus on diving physiology which is even more important. Most divers can probably tell you why holding your breath while ascending is bad and surfacing too quickly is bad. Do they truly understand how it works though?

In the U.S. Navy, a Master Diver is one who has mastered all aspects of diving skills AND diving physics and physiology. They can only be identified as a Master Diver once they have proven that they are totally and completely reliable underwater and know diving in and out above water. I feel that calling someone a Master Scuba Diver just because they have completed five specialties, Rescue and paid a fee is ridiculous. What have they mastered? They have tried several things but have they mastered anything? A true master of anything is an expert on the subject. Saying that someone is a master because they've tried a few things a couple of times is insane in my opinion.

 

[Aquatic Eagle]

While I see your point, I would argue that there are different areas of mastery. Just because one person does more safety related courses doesn't make him more of a master of diving as there are areas that he is also weak in (e.g. fish I.D.) To truly be a master I would say that a diver should have to be qualified in the entire gamut. This would remove all doubt.

But just like I would consider someone who is well known for their fish I.D. course and the great dives they lead to teach other this knowledge a 'master', I would also consider someone skilled in the art of leading and teaching cave diving a 'master.' Yet I wouldn't ask either of them to attempt to teach the other's specialty.

I would go as far as to say that someone that achieves either area of mastery is most likely pretty good at scuba in general. Not saying that there aren't exceptions but in general.

I understand what you're saying and agree. Maybe more agencies should have "Master ****" in the different specialties. NAUI Instructors have the option of expanding on specialties and awarding "Master" or "Full" certification in a specific specialty. Ex. "Master Underwater Navigator".

In my opinion, being a Master Scuba Diver is about knowing the sport in and out. It doesn't mean you have mastered every possible activity the sport offers but you have been exposed to many of them and have mastered the core areas of the sport.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Is "Dive Master" also objectionable?

It is when the DM can't dive worth a damn ... and I know quite a few of those. We have a local shop that seems to believe every diver should go for DM ... whether they learn anything along the way or not ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[TMHeimer]

Yeah, I can pretty much agree with all that both Herk & Eagle say. I also am aware that NAUI Instructors have far more leeway than PADI's-ei, I have PADI Underwater Nav specialty but never heard of a double triangle. I may argue that on paper it would seem more thorough to do the 15-20 dives required by PADI to get the 5 specialties than 8 for NAUI. As well, with the exception of the NAUI Deep/simulated deco and Air Consumption (elective) dives, the 2 agencies seem similar. I agree that one should be required to take the "core" or safety dives and get those specialties, but also maybe a smattering of other stuff to truly be a "master". Not really sure where the academics fit into it. We covered it in PADI DM of course, but although all of it is very interesting, I'm not sure what percentage is really used 99% of the time. For example, you can stay a max of 20 mins. on Air at 100 fsw, whether you have a thorough understanding of Henry's Law, M-Values or not. But I'm still only a DMC, so I have much to learn. I think it is possible the superiority of the NAUI over PADI MSD is perhaps overdone.

 

[Herk_Man]

I understand what you're saying and agree. Maybe more agencies should have "Master ****" in the different specialties. NAUI Instructors have the option of expanding on specialties and awarding "Master" or "Full" certification in a specific specialty. Ex. "Master Underwater Navigator".

In my opinion, being a Master Scuba Diver is about knowing the sport in and out. It doesn't mean you have mastered every possible activity the sport offers but you have been exposed to many of them and have mastered the core areas of the sport.

Ya, I think we're pretty close there. My only rebuttal would be that both divers have taken a series of somewhat unrelated courses, not just in one specific area. So they not only have become experts in multiple areas, their diving experience has increased significantly under the eye of instructors. So I would be hard to categorize their mastery, and I still maintain they are both masters.

But overall I think we're seeing things from similar angles.

 

[Aquatic Eagle]

Yeah, I can pretty much agree with all that both Herk & Eagle say. I also am aware that NAUI Instructors have far more leeway than PADI's-ei, I have PADI Underwater Nav specialty but never heard of a double triangle.

Imagine two equilateral triangles touching at one tip and flat against the bottom of the screen. We had to swim that pattern and return to the origin. The double square is similar except they don't touch but are connected by a single line the same length as a side of one of the squares.

I may argue that on paper it would seem more thorough to do the 15-20 dives required by PADI to get the 5 specialties than 8 for NAUI. As well, with the exception of the NAUI Deep/simulated deco and Air Consumption (elective) dives, the 2 agencies seem similar.

That's assuming that the NAUI instructor only requires the minimum of 8 dives. That's also assuming that NAUI's 8 dive minimum is the same as PADI's requirement which it isn't necessarily. For NAUI, those dives are required as part of the course and most likely the diver has already experienced some of these subjects as part of prior specialties. NAUI is requiring that 8 dives be done specifically for MSD while the PADI instructor is assuming that those other specialties were quality courses and awarding credit for dives that he/she has not witnessed.

Ex. Two divers have the same number of dives and take the exact same specialties and are rescue certified. One is PADI and the other is NAUI. They both decide to go for MSD. The PADI diver fills out paperwork and pays $50 while the NAUI diver takes a course requiring him to learn advanced academics and dive an additional 8 times (at a minimum) while learning and expanding on new subjects, not to mention the difficult written exam.

I think it is possible the superiority of the NAUI over PADI MSD is perhaps overdone.

They can't be fairly compared. One is an actual course, the other is simply a card showing past experience.

 

[Aquatic Eagle]

By the way...I'm not trying to make it sound as if any NAUI MSD is better than any PADI MSD. I'm simply discussing the requirements for each program.