PADI Holds The New World's Record for Fastest OW Class

[SteveAD]

I agree with lowwall, any basic ow class is a liscence to learn. I jokingly rename the classes to my students as follows:

ow=how to use scuba gear without hurting yourself
aow=now that you can use the gear, how to dive
rescue= how to be a good buddy
many of the specialties can also be good. the streamlined, well-trimmed diver with good bouyancy would be the goal of PADI's peak performance bouyancy, but ultimately any class involves an instructor showing the basic skill sets and it is then the students responsibility to incorporate these skill set into their own diving.

 

[elmbruker]

I agree with lowwall, any basic ow class is a liscence to learn. I jokingly rename the classes to my students as follows:

ow=how to use scuba gear without hurting yourself
aow=now that you can use the gear, how to dive
rescue= how to be a good buddy
many of the specialties can also be good. the streamlined, well-trimmed diver with good buoyancy would be the goal of PADI's peak performance buoyancy, but ultimately any class involves an instructor showing the basic skill sets and it is then the students responsibility to incorporate these skill set into their own diving.

Same principle I received @ my lds. I especially like how OW is worded. I am very interested in a report on how diving accidents and emergency's relate to the curriculum that is taught. How an OOA/other emergency is incorporate into basic OW courses(checking Gauge etc.). I'll myself will assume that most OOA and other emergency's are taught to be avoided in basic OW class, until said report shows that most OOA/others emergency's are cause by unattainable knowledge through basic OW curriculum. As stated above, the trained OW diver has dropped the ball on his responsibility to incorporate the skills of basic OW in to their diving, not the DM/Agency!

 

[caseybird]

Many DIs and DMs I have spoken to have expressed agreement that perhaps it’s time to look at changing the way intro training is conducted. Some are on-board completely; others want to look deeper into the details for themselves, some say I’m an out to lunch rookie without enough experience, and to green to be able to make an enlightened opinion. I won’t be breaking open the champagne any time soon, but if some are questioning, others contemplating, than perhaps the tiniest of snowballs has been started down the hill.

Storm,
Have you taught ANY dive courses? That might give you more insight into training than surveys.
Experiance is a great teacher, you know.

 

[nyprrthd]

I've always heard that experience is what you get when you don't get what you want

 

[Storm]

Storm,
Have you taught ANY dive courses? That might give you more insight into training than surveys.
Experiance is a great teacher, you know.

No I haven't. Teaching the course is not the issue here. The curriculum, or more over, the standards used to create the curriculum, and how they are satisfying student expectations, and serving students in the practical side of diving are.

Here's what happened...just so we can nip this in the bud.

I had what I thought was a good OW course, with a good DI and better than average DMs

The standards allow an OW student to fasttrack on to the AOW without any pre-requisite experience other than the four dives in the OW. I did this and there were were issues on one of those AOW dives, and while I take full responsibility for the outcome, which thanks to following some of my OW training, and my regular buddy’s actions, ended up with everyone making it back to the boat alive.

It got me asking questions about the minimum standards and requirements. To be fair to the various agencies, I started to ask other new divers about their courses, and their thoughts about how they felt about their courses. I also asked that they not mentioned the agency as I was not looking for agency bashing or promotion.

I was regaled with tale of OOAs, panicked divers, narced divers, days spent sucking on someone else’s silt, and my favorite, a student who managed to pass her navigation course despite the fact that, due to poor vision, she could not even read her compass underwater. I then asked these same new divers what skills they thought were lacking from their OW training.....the same four categories came up.

I then asked some more senior divers what skills I should work on between my AOW and rescue course, and was told the four that I mentioned. Funny thing was, every senior diver who mentioned those four, also said they believed that these should part of the OW. Some were DI's, some were DMs. and were from various agencies.

When I started to ask about the how the agencies came up with their standards and was told to look into the RSTC standards as all agencies use these as a base minimum. So I looked into the standards, and in all honesty, as someone who spent a few years translating standards into operating procedures, what I read could barely be called a standard, and barely addressed the subject matter it was supposed to govern.

Although I am fairly informal when writing here, (I do not do extensive edits...after all I'm not getting paid for this stuff) I do make a living writing training plans, procedures, and business processes, etc. So it's not a great stretch to take in the responses I got from both new divers and senior divers, analyze and interpret the commonality found and deduce that the root cause of the issues appear lie with the minimum standards.

So you see this is not just one diver’s opinion, but rather a detailed information gathering followed by an analysis of the data gathered which lead to the production a rather logical conclusion.

I admit that the sampling is small, only about one hundred informal interviews, and thus my sampling and questions may have a potential for error, but I doubt that anyone on the opposite side of the issue has even bothered to go this far before attempting to discuss the issue publicly. On a side note, what I find even more interesting, it the total refusal of many to even engage in the idea that there may be room for improvement.

One thing I would like to point out. I am not trying to debunk the industry or the sport, it’s actually the opposite. My motivations are to try and get the scuba training industry to adopt the cycle of continuous improvement. This industry is continually gaining in popularity. This is a double edged sword. As the industry grows so will the number of divers and the statistical probability is that the number of accidents/deaths will also increase. Eventually these numbers will increase to the point that they either garner the attention of some ambitious government type, or agency then watch out f those types get involved, the sport WILL get hurt. I’ve seen it happen with other sports.

It’s already happened in one province in Canada, and we are now hearing rumblings in other areas.

Anyway I’ve gotten the most out of this exercise that I can, and rehashing this is not really bringing up any new points. If I decide to complete the study, and publish a report, I’ll share it with the agencies, and with you folks here, otherwise thanks for all you input, and I hope to see you all one day at 60 feet down on a pristine reef with tones of fish to see, and an open hand to shake.


Cheers to all.

 

[lowwall]

Storm,

I think you are tilting at windmills here. As I stated in #299, there are actually very good reasons why basic open water is limited in scope. I'm also not sure you understand the importance of a court tested curriculum for training a potentially dangerous activity in the US, which is after all by far the largest market for dive training and dive gear. It's no coincidence that all the major agencies that offer basic OW training have similar curricula.

Nothing is going to move the certifying agencies to significantly change that curriculum barring a large number of accidents by people staying within the limitations of that training. And, frankly that's not likely, diving is extremely safe as long as you follow the rules and only likely to get safer as equipment continues to evolve.

If you want to make a difference, I suggest you start by coming up with a realistic advanced open water curriculum and then figure out how to make dive ops require it for advanced dives. The cert. agencies are a lot less likely to fight such a movement and might even support it.

Alex

 

[Storm]

Storm,

I think you are tilting at windmills here. As I stated in #299, there are actually very good reasons why basic open water is limited in scope. I'm also not sure you understand the importance of a court tested curriculum for training a potentially dangerous activity in the US, which is after all by far the largest market for dive training and dive gear. It's no coincidence that all the major agencies that offer basic OW training have similar curricula.

Nothing is going to move the certifying agencies to significantly change that curriculum barring a large number of accidents by people staying within the limitations of that training. And, frankly that's not likely, diving is extremely safe as long as you follow the rules and only likely to get safer as equipment continues to evolve.

If you want to make a difference, I suggest you start by coming up with a realistic advanced open water curriculum and then figure out how to make dive ops require it for advanced dives. The cert. agencies are a lot less likely to fight such a movement and might even support it.

Alex

Alex,


First off, I did read your post 299, I just happen to disagree with it. Trim and proper buoyancy are not advance skills they are fundamental skills, and there are plenty of OW dive scenarios were the lack of these skills could make the new diver a danger to themselves, other divers, or the dive environment.

Simply training people to surviv a divem then give them the go ahead to try their luck atdepths up to 60 feet, is hardly what I would consider a great idea, but hey that's just me.

Secondly if it takes deaths and physical injury to motivate changes then there is a real problem with the way things are done in the major market place. A proactive approach to improvement serves the public better than a reactionary one. The problem with reactionary change, in this scenario, is the fact that some have to get hurt or killed before the changes get entertained. BTW the majority of the people I talked to were US divers, and of those who regaled me with their tales, all said they did not "go outside" of the limitations, and still had issues/incidents. But to be fair, these are the ancedotal incidents of a small sampling, only about 100 divers, but is does make oine wonder what the results would be if a full study could be indertaken.

Thirdly, it's not coincidences that that all agencies offer the same type of training, the RSTC standards dictate the minimums. The problem with this is that the RTSC board, is dominated by the agencies and their motivation is not providing proper training, their motivation is to create a training dependant diver to feed their profit priority system.

Finally, substituting equipment for proper training is just plain stupid, equipment can fail, proper training remains with the student for life. I've had enough experience dragging lost fools out of the bush because their GPS failed and they didn’t know how to use a map or compass properly. At least they weren;t dependant upon their equipment for life support.

Anyway we agree to disagree. It's a shame that many are willing to accept the minimums, the mediocre and that attempts to improve upon the mediocre is met with apathy and derision.

The good thing about this whole exercise in frustration is that I have a well developed training plan made up for my wife and I that will take us to our diving goals safely, and this in itself was worth the effort.

Alex, perhaps we'll meet one day on a Great Lakes wreck. Until then safe and happy diving.

 

[kmdiver17]

As a brand new PADI certified diver - (not quite that quick of a crash course, but still fairly quick) - and speaking for myself - I agree - Nothing happened during my first 10 dives, but in looking back, and reading further...I don't think I had enough training to be safe! I think it depends a lot on the person, but I think that students should at least be encouraged to ask for more instruction if they need it...I will be doing the advanced open water for that reason...and am learning lots by reading here and other material!! I also feel that I was pressured by all on my liveaboard (fellow passengers and the crew) to do more than I should have!! I did resist a couple things, but did do a couple I shouldn't have.

 

[lowwall]

Storm -

I'd like to wish you well on your quest, but I'm afraid that if you did manage to greatly expand the training requirements for primary level certification, the result would be an unhealthy diminution of an already marginalized activity and possibly a greater accident rate.

I think flying is a good analogy here. The basic private pilot's license allows the holder to fly sophisticated single engine aircraft in complex airspace in all conditions (day or night) as long as certain visibility requirements are met. There is obviously some risk involved, so accidents do happen. For decades now one of the government's prime responses to accidents has been to tighten training requirements. Today, training for this license takes probably twice as long as it did at the peak of flight training popularity in the 1950s.

Paradoxically, this increased training for private pilots has not led to a decrease in the accident rate. Two of the primary factors for this are germane to our discussion. First, increased training costs have led to a sharp reduction of pilots over time, leading to diseconomies of scale and thus very high prices for an hour's flight. This, in turn, has led to the average pilot flying less and less, making it difficult for them to keep thier skill levels high. Second, there is considerable evidence that a sizeable percentage of flying accidents would have been prevented if the pilot had simply concentrating on basic flying skills rather than being distracted with tasks that make up the majority of training time but are inessential at best during an emergency.

Even worse, the high prices and restrictive regulations have led large number of prospective pilots to opt out of the training and licensing system altogether, most commonly by flying unregulated ultralight aircraft. The accident rate here is truly horrendous.

It is interesting that within the last year, the US government has rethought basic training altogether. The private pilot license continues, but there is a new license that emulates the standard open water training approach. Under this license, students are quickly (relative to the standard license) taught basic skills only, but then are limited to flying simple airplanes in simple conditions (for example, daylight operations only).

Please note that I do agree that the skills you discuss should be taught. I just think the proper place for them is an advanced class. There is simply nothing to be gained and potentially a lot to be lost by driving away those who just want to follow a DM around and look at the pretty fishies.

One last thing. You said, "Finally, substituting equipment for proper training is just plain stupid, equipment can fail, proper training remains with the student for life." I think this is too simplistic. I happened to find a copy of an early diving training manual in my condo building's library yesterday. Page one had swim test requirements that seem unnecessarily severe today, including: 3 minutes treading water with legs only, 15 minutes treading water using arms and legs, a 300 yard timed swim swim, a 40 yard swim towing an unresponsive diver, and a 15 yard underwater swim without pushing off. I bet the majority of certified divers today couldn't meet these standards, yet the accident rate is ceratinly no higher because of it. Why not? Well, I suspect my manual's lack of any mention of BCDs has a lot to do with it.

Alex

I do hope we meet someday, preferably in water a little warmer than Lake Michigan.

 

[Storm]

Alex,

I submit that your analogy in interesting, but slightly off key. You see a few years ago I looked into flight training as well, and I agree that the training is truly cost prohibitive, but the training costs did not necessarily defer me, the overall equipment costs did. Plane rental, fuel costs, are bad enough, but to purchase one's own single engine like a an the older Cessna or Piper, are still around 60,000.00 CND We all know that a recreational diver, will never hit even close to a fraction of that cost, unless they buy a really nice cabin cruiser. Then there was a simple cost benefit analysis.

Would flying, as a recreational activity and not a primary travel method, give me the best bang for my buck? For me the answer was no. Simple wet rental fees from 103.00 per hour, up to 303.00 per hour not counting the other flight incidental costs could make a day of flying run easily into one to two thousand, a far cry from a three tank day cost of about 75.00 with full equipment rental.

I humbly submit that it is the cost of participating in the activity of flying that keeps many interested people on the ground, not the training standards.

Using your analogy, the basic skill of how to keep the plane level and at the right altitude and attitude are basic skills, not advanced one...or at least I bloody well hope so. These are the same skills that in the diving world you call advanced. So going further along with your analogy, a new flyer would be given his license to, let's say, fly under 500 feet and be taught how to take off land, use their radio to communicate, and fly in straight line in any direction in any attitude, for one minute and that's it. We'll work on the engine manipulation; how to fly level, maintaining proper altitude, and attitude, later in a peak level flight and air stream course...but you'll have to pay for that one separately.

Before you jump, I know that above sounds ridiculous. Pilots are taught altitude and attitude control, in their first few flight lessons. They are taught how to fly, not merely how the equipment works, and how to bail out.

Drivers are taught now to drive forward and backward, side to side as part of their basic training. Pilots are taught how to properly ascend and descend as well as how to move laterally, (backwards isn’t an option in fixed wing flying) as part of their basic flight; so why not divers.

Ask yourself this, even the 2-4 dives a year, DM follower on a pretty reef, looking at fish, with a hard sandy bottom of sixty feet, needs to be able to control their buoyancy while actually diving. At the minimum to actually see anything and have fun, otherwise they spend their time fighting to perform the act of diving, and after a few dives, say it isn’t for them and pack it in.

As far as a safety issue is concerned, place a poll on this site and ask all divers if they use their lungs to control minor depth control, or their BCD. We know what the answer is. Then ask them, did they do this from the very beginning, or was it something they learned after their OW. This is basic diving 101. But I’m willing to bet if you take pictures of al those OW warriors out there in tropic land who have less than ten dives under their belt, you’ll find that LPI glued in on hand. That’s a hell of a way to promote yourself into an OOA, just keep shunting air into and out of your BCD, because you don’t have popper trim and buoyancy control, because you were not taught it in you OW. That is one of the reasons you see rookie diver ballooning up so often, and we’re not even going to talk about the dangers in that…it obvious. Finally, just what happens to all those other “DM lead me divers”, when the DM has to shoot up and get a hold of rookie ”I didn’t need to learn that buoyancy control stuff in OW” diver? Who’s minding the other kiddies? What happens of there is a REAL emergency?

These are just some of the scenarios that I have either witnessed, or have been told by the folks I talked to. The was the new diver who blew his buoyancy, and popped up enough for the current to blow him off the wreck…he got picked up a mile or so down river bobbing about without so much as a sausage marker. Lucky guy.

Or the girl, who didn’t know how to back kick that got driven onto a wreck, had her mask flood and the second sage pop out of her mouth. Her buddy was there to help her out, and she survived, but she doubts she’s going to hit the water again with gear on (her words not mine). We won’t mention the damage to a 100 year old wooden wreck.

Those four skills are not advanced. They are basic skills.

As to substituting equipment for skill, some of the more common ones, adding a pony bottle for compensate for poor SAC, or a dive comp becasue they dont know how to use the RDP or Wheel. In other words they are using equipment to compensate for skill and not using equipment to augment skill.

I do hope we meet someday, preferably in water a little warmer than Lake Michigan.

Aw common buddy I did my OW and AOW in October in the St Lawrence. Embrace the horror. Cold water keeps you awake, and lets you know you're alive. Not to mention there are over 5000 juicy wrecks in the Great Lakes to keep your eyes popping.

If it get too cold there always dry suit training...

Anyway I'll pass the mike off and leave you guys the final.

Cheers to all