Naui//padi padi/naui??

[Crowley]

Generally agree with the "go talk to your LDS / potential instructor" rather than get stuck with agencies. Of course, I am a PADI person and therefore would invite you to join me for one of the great PADI classes that are (apparently) so uncommon...! (tongue in cheek, Walter, my good man! )

If you are outside the USA and learn to dive in a resort area then you will be hard pressed to find NAUI representatives because PADI has the lion's share of the market in most of the popular dive resorts - however neither certification will hinder your diving and all the major agencies respect each other's certifications so if you did your basic course with NAUI you could do your advanced course with PADI and vice versa (or SSI or SDI or whatever).

As to which is best? That debate will rage until there is only one uber-agency left standing!!

All recreational agencies teach basically the same stuff, just in different ways and therefore I also agree with the sentiment that which agency you choose is, to a point, immaterial. Some go further than others for their basic courses, but the basic principles of diving and dive safety are taught by everybody. I also think it's fair to say that the student's own approach to diving is just as important, if not more so, than the instructor's. There's a wealth of information out there, and you don't necessarily need an instructor to teach it to you. There are also plenty of private instructors (such as Walter above) who will, I'm sure, be happy to take you beyond basic agency training in order to enhcance your diving knowledge and experience. Although strictly speaking not necessary, I think it does a diver credit so seek answers beyond what is taught by any agency. To a large extent, you will get out of diving what you put into it.

Whichever agency you choose - good luck and welcome to my world!

Safe diving,

C.

 

[ScubaDocER]

This question gets asked alot and the responses seem to be mixed at best. Often times it decompensates into personal preferences/biases or maligns one agency or another. I don't think that has happened in this thread but it dawned on me that perhaps people are asking an incomplete question. The question really addresses two parts, not just one. Which is better in terms of an agencies standards and which is better in terms of the Instructors that teach under the agencies name. The answer to both can be objective in certain instances and subjective in others. A better response to the OP's question is to ask them what it is they hope to obtain as a result of their training and try to match that desire to the agency best suited to do that. Walter and Jim's link are an excellent beginning as well as Walter's sticky in the New Divers section and will hopefully lead the OP to an answer. Perhaps people aren't sure what questions to ask. Again, the link is a great beginning. It might be better if responders ask this question before answering the OPs question. Not a critique, just a thought.

 

[BarryTX]

My original certification was with NAUI, back in 1973, and it was a great course due to a great instructor. After many years without a tank on my back I decided to go through the OW cert course again, and this time the shop I chose was PADI. I lucked out and got another great instructor, who also incorporated various discussions and commentary on things that have changed since my original certification. This kind of bridged the 2 courses for me and was much appreciated.

I will say that, 36 years later, PADI comes across with a much bigger marketing effort (geared toward continued education and $$ throught them) than NAUI had years ago. Maybe they all have headed this direction at this point. But that is more about style than content, so to speak, and I found both agency's certification curriculum to be complete and well done. In the end I agree the instructor makes the course and is more critical than the agency itself.

 

[elan]

While the general statement about finding a good instructor is true I was explained recently that with PADI they have to strictly follow the procedures so that means that even if the instructor knows how to do some things differently and that could be better or would give you better training they have to do it PADI way. So it means you get PADI training.

 

[jviehe]

PADI is better of course.

 

[Walter]

All recreational agencies teach basically the same stuff

While some of it is the same, I couldn't disagree more strongly with your statement. Skills I consider essential to diving safely are not required by some agencies, but are required by others.

 

[KJackson60]

I have to agree with those that believe the instructor is key. MOST agencies are pretty much the same at the introductory level. The real difference is your ability to develope a relationship with your instructor. A good instructor will teach you what you need to know and make sure that you know it. They will also make themselves available to answer any questions you have or assist you with any "comfort" issues that you may have in the water. The agency at this level is really not that important.

 

[Walter]

MOST agencies are pretty much the same at the introductory level.

And you know this from studying the standards of how many agencies?

 

[Crowley]

Indeed - some skills that individual instructors might consider necessary are not required by agencies who collectively, over the last 30 odd years, and in conjunction with other organisations such as DAN and DSAT, have determined that particular skills or knowledge are not required by entry level recreational divers. It is of course quite possible that all these thousands of people over the years have been wrong, however I suspect not.

For those who might be interested, here is a link to RSTC minimum training guidelines required for introductory level diver training. The (W)RSTC ((World) Recreational Scuba Training Council) is an organisation founded for agencies to collectively share their knowledge, research and experience. Members include such agencies such as PADI, SSI, SDI, PDIC, the now defunct YMCA, IDEA, ACUC and a couple of others. DAN Europe - the Diver's Alert Network - are also members.

NAUI used to be a member but are no longer - however one of their executive directors was a long time member of the RSTC governing committee. There are of course, lots more agencies; some are not members because they do not meet mimium RSTC requirements themselves - others have different organisational philosphies that do not lend themselves to membership.

As for exceeding standards - yes NAUI instructors are encouraged to do so and PADI instructors are discouraged from doing so but that does not mean that PADI intructors are somehow keeping dive secrets from our students! There's nothing to say we are unable to offer advice and expand on the basic training as long as we do not "overteach" - for examply by having sudents fin pivot over a 400 metre drop off. It should be recognised that overteaching, for some divers, can be as potentially dangerous as underteaching. Regardless of agency, an instructor who tries to exceed standards for a diver who has not yet mastered the basic requirements is doing as much of a disservice to their student as an instructor who assesses a student on a "good enough" basis.

So back to the OP's question as to which is better? Neither. They're just different, that's all.

Safe diving folks ... where's my popcorn!?

C.

C.

 

[Walter]

Indeed - some skills that individual instructors might consider necessary are not required by agencies who collectively, over the last 30 odd years, and in conjunction with other organisations such as DAN and DSAT, have determined that particular skills or knowledge are not required by entry level recreational divers.

That's simply untrue. Agencies do not discuss their standards with each other. There are no such decisions that were made "collectively." DAN and DSAT have never been involved in writing standards nor even giving advice on what should be taught. DAN does give medical recommendations which agencies may or may not follow, but they are not involved in writing standards.

As for the RSTC (WRSTC), you are misleading people when you say it "is an organisation <sic> founded for agencies to collectively share their knowledge, research and experience." It is actually an organization founded to prevent government intervention. In 1985, agencies greatly feared the US federal government would write a set of minimum standards. To avoid that, NASDS, NAUI, PADI, SSI and YMCA banded together and adopted a set of "minimum standards for the industry." The minimum standards adopted were not what they each regarded as the minimum "required by entry level recreational divers." They were basically what they could all grudgingly agree to meet or exceed. Even at the time, NAUI and YMCA believed them to be woefully inadequate. Shortly after, those agencies, minus YMCA, founded the RSTC. NAUI later dropped out and YMCA later joined. Since that time, those minimums have been lowered even farther. Don&#8217;t mislead people into thinking the RSTC minimums have any resemblance to what is needed for people to actually learn to dive.