PADI MSD -- A Modest Proposal

[t-mac]

I hope this is posted in the right place. It is not really Q&A; it is more of an answer to a question no one has asked me!

I've been thinking about several common threads that consistently bump around and I have an idea, perhaps not novel, to resolve several of them. This is directed to PADI and the Master Scuba Diver cert, but perhaps it applies more broadly.

The one point is the value of the MSD. Is it just an expensive merit badge or does it really mean something. Obviously it means something personally (I have it), but I doubt a shop has ever asked anyone to see their MSD credentials. A lot of people criticize what it is called and that it suggests mastery, which it doesn't really aguably provide -- it requires a certain number of dives, rescue (legit), but then a number of specialties that could be cupcakes. So, perhaps what it needs is more rigor to make it respectable?

The other thread that caught my eye recently is qualifications to do deep dives and shop comfort with OW versus AOW or even the deep speciality. Of course, that is ultimately up to the shop (and the diver), but I also believe that many shops, whether for liability purposes or out of sincere comfort, would more readily take a diver on a deep dive if they had the speciality than if they were at the other end of the spectrum. In my opinion, everyone should be more comfortable with that.

So, back to MSD (or perhaps we name it something else, in the interest of hyper-superlative names, like Utlimate Scuba Diving Poobah!), what can we do to give it more respect and perhaps make it more meaningful to everyone. I always carry multiple c-cards with me in case I am asked -- at least Nitrox and and one other to prove minimum of AOW for deep diving. This seems stupid. So, one thing we could do is to roll more stuff into MSD so that it can be a stand-alone. Why shouldn't we expect a "master" to have at least a basic nitrox certification in today's world where it is so common and useful. And shouldn't we also expect such a diver to have the deep specialty, indicating they have some experience and training with the full range of recreational depths? And what about navigation? With the basic navigation training from AOW should we really certify people as "masters." This is such a basic skill and we should at least require proficiency (note my avoidance of "mastery") before presuming to deem someone to have "mastered" recreational diving.

What I am proposing, then, is to up the rigor and make it more meaninful -- require at least nitrox, deep and navigation specialities among the 5 (or more, perhaps). What about requiring combining skills from some of the specialties in some dedicated MSD dives? Maybe even set a miminum number of non-training dives so we are sure that an MSD hasn't just done a lot of training, but has gone out into the real world? Maybe we require a certain number of deep and nitrox non-training dives (like the prerequisites for some of the tech courses)?

What would this accomplish? Aside from taking away the meaningfulness debate, it would make the cert practically useful. Someone shows the MSD card and it means they can use nitrox, they are probably okay on a deep dive and they can probably navigate proficiently so you can dump them in on their own. It would also provide a greater sense of accomplishment to the person getting the cert, a value that should not be underestimated in this community populated with many very goal-oriented people.

Yes, I know there are many other debates about what should be included in the more basic training courses. My proposal is to work with the existing system, warts and all, and to have something like the MSD that everyone is comfortable is a meaninful step beyond rescue and towards "mastery," whatever that means.

So there you have it, my modest poroposal. For those of you waiting for the cannibalistic elements, they are not here. In the spirit of the current political season, it was simply a ruse to get you to read the thread. Thank you for your consideration.

 

[DCBC]

Some people just like to collect badges, a portion of these believe that these badges make them competent as divers. Others don't believe that this is the case. In the Navy, a Master Diver Qualification is a meaningful one. In recreational diving it seldom is (thus your proposal).

You have stated that "Someone shows the MSD card and it means they can use Nitrox, they are probably okay on a deep dive and they can probably navigate proficiently so you can dump them in on their own." I don't know about the course you took, but my (and some other Instructors that I know on SB) 'standard OW program' already accomplishes this to a large degree (mine includes rescue as well).

PADI (like some other agencies) took what was (at the time) a standard SCUBA program and broke it down into smaller modules. Some would say that the flow of each module makes it easier to deliver and better for the student, while others might argue that it was done solely as a way of greatly increasing cash-flow. Regardless, there are but a few certifications today that I'd say are worth their weight.

 

[t-mac]

You have stated that "Someone shows the MSD card and it means they can use Nitrox, they are probably okay on a deep dive and they can probably navigate proficiently so you can dump them in on their own." I don't know about the course you took, but my (and some other Instructors that I know on SB) 'standard OW program' already accomplishes this to a large degree (mine includes rescue as well).
QUOTE]

Thanks. This was not meant to be a piss-on-PADI thread. They can be criticized and have been. I personally think the basic training should be more rigorous, but that was not the point of this post. The point was to work within what is already in place. Like it or not, PADI trains a lot of divers and the fact that a lot of people on SB think that the basic courses are not rigorous enough is not going to change they way they do things. In an ideal world people spend a lot of time researching the best instructor and the best training program and they have lots of options available. I personally believe that is rarely the case. Most people that want to get certified find the closes PADI (or analog) shop and sign up. So, what do we do about that? The existing agencies have a huge vested interest in the way they do things and there is nothing like a compelling safety concern manifesting itself in the statistics that is likely to change this reality. In an ideal world, we all select instructors like you the first go, but that is not our world. I am proposing something that works with existing system (PADI in this case) and it tries to satisfy all of the parties concerned in the various training and non-training transactions.

 

[DCBC]

t-mac, as you started the thread by saying "This is directed to PADI and the Master Scuba Diver cert, but perhaps it applies more broadly" I was taking the more broad approach. I'm not commenting on PADI at all, as I left that organization almost 20 years ago. I do know however that it's not the only agency world-wide. There are many organizations that structure their training programs by establishing "minimum standards." This concept isn't grasped by many; especially inside the PADI community. Minimum Standards are the minimum that's required by the Agency. That said, the Instructor is empowered (in-fact encouraged) to add whatever information/skill-sets that s/he feels is required and evaluate and base "certification" on this criteria. Because of this, what you receive by way of instruction is not necessarily what the Agency itself demands. As there are thousands of Instructors teaching for these Agencies, I felt that it was appropriate to point this out. Not all Agencies are similar to PADI. If it was your intent to restrict the conversation to PADI training, I'll leave it to others to continue the discussion...

You have stated that "Someone shows the MSD card and it means they can use Nitrox, they are probably okay on a deep dive and they can probably navigate proficiently so you can dump them in on their own." I don't know about the course you took, but my (and some other Instructors that I know on SB) 'standard OW program' already accomplishes this to a large degree (mine includes rescue as well).
QUOTE]

Thanks. This was not meant to be a piss-on-PADI thread. They can be criticized and have been. I personally think the basic training should be more rigorous, but that was not the point of this post. The point was to work within what is already in place. Like it or not, PADI trains a lot of divers and the fact that a lot of people on SB think that the basic courses are not rigorous enough is not going to change they way they do things. In an ideal world people spend a lot of time researching the best instructor and the best training program and they have lots of options available. I personally believe that is rarely the case. Most people that want to get certified find the closes PADI (or analog) shop and sign up. So, what do we do about that? The existing agencies have a huge vested interest in the way they do things and there is nothing like a compelling safety concern manifesting itself in the statistics that is likely to change this reality. In an ideal world, we all select instructors like you the first go, but that is not our world. I am proposing something that works with existing system (PADI in this case) and it tries to satisfy all of the parties concerned in the various training and non-training transactions.

 

[t-mac]

I do know however that it's not the only agency world-wide. There are many organizations that structure their training programs by establishing "minimum standards." This concept isn't grasped by many; especially inside the PADI community. Minimum Standards are the minimum that's required by the Agency. That said, the Instructor is empowered (in-fact encouraged) to add whatever information/skill-sets that s/he feels is required and evaluate and base "certification" on this criteria. Because of this, what you receive by way of instruction is not necessarily what the Agency itself demands.

DCBC, I agree with you and I also agree with your implication that many teach to the minimum standards and that is ashame. It is a reality, and an unfortunate one. Yes, this is principally directed to the PADI system. The suggestion that it might apply more broadly was based on the notion that it might apply to equivalents offered by other agencies, not to the greater-than-minimum-standards programs offered by you and number of the other instructors I follow here on SB. Anyway, sorry if we misinterpreted each other.

 

[drrich2]

PADI is not going to make everybody happy, whether with their Master Scuba Diver course, their OW course, their AOW, and with the 'zero to hero' threads evidently not their Instructor training course, either. Nor can I realistically imagine them going whole-hog after more rigorous standards, such that OW would be like OW+AOW+Rescue & AOW like Gue Fundamentals, for instances.

Be mindful that the MSD cert. as it stands encourages many divers to take Rescue & some specialties. If you made it much more rigorous, you might raise the 'prestige' level of those holding it, but perhaps a lot less people would pursue that greater amount of training. So such a move could lead to a net effect of less scuba training in the overall dive community, not more.

Obviously it means something personally (I have it), but I doubt a shop has ever asked anyone to see their MSD credentials.

Why would they? AOW and maybe Deep Diver seem sufficient for most. I would imagine asking to see MSD credentials would be for usually dangerous dives, and those (e.g.: cave diving, ice diving) require specialist training themselves.

A lot of people criticize what it is called and that it suggests mastery, which it doesn't really aguably provide -- it requires a certain number of dives, rescue (legit), but then a number of specialties that could be cupcakes. So, perhaps what it needs is more rigor to make it respectable?

Unless regional availability is limiting you, why not just take NAUI Master Scuba Diver or hunt up Jim Lapenta or one of the other SEI folks and see about taking with them? People speak well of growing as divers by training under the GUE Fundamentals course. My point is, if you want the best hamburger in the world, don't walk into McDonalds and gripe about the Big Mac. Wrong place for that (no offense to McDonalds).

I always carry multiple c-cards with me in case I am asked -- at least Nitrox and and one other to prove minimum of AOW for deep diving. This seems stupid.

I do wish agencies offered a cert. card listing all your cert.s with them on the one card. MSD cards do list your cert.s to get it, at least, from what I understand. Of course, some folks have cert.s from more than one agency...

Following up some other points.

1.) You need a grandiose title like 'Master' to get more people to take the course, especially gullible newbies most likely to benefit from that modular formal training and who rely on it.

2.) No matter what you do to the PADI MSD, you will not stop people from griping about it, and the use of the term 'Master' on ScubaBoard. Not gonna happen.

3.) Not everybody does diving where nitrox is useful (I got cert.'d for Bonaire, which is the only place I've used it so far). Ditto deep diving; not everybody dives over 100 feet deep (I did the deep specialty, and I liked it, but not everybody needs it).

4.) Who are you trying to 'make it more meaningful' to? Seems to be meaningful to PADI and the divers who seek it as is. Those who want more rigor can pick tougher, more useful specialties, or train beyond it (no law says you can't get your MSD cert., then go take GUE Fundamentals).

5.) Requiring 'non-training dives' could be dicey. It encourages people to 'run up their dive count' doing repetitive easy dives in good conditions, you can't verify they really did them, if the dives don't require the skills you're teaching there's not much point, and if they do require the skills you're teaching, sending them off to dive those dives untrained becomes a problem.

We really don't need PADI's MSD course to be changed, because the kind of training you suggest already exists for people who want to pursue it, and judging from posts on this forum, no certification, including Instructor, guarantees mastery or even good proficiency at diving.

I predict PADI will go right on setting the bar fairly low and handing out the grandiose 'master' rating and that they will likely continue to be patronized by more divers than some of the competing agencies with the higher standards so prized by some of our members (perhaps rightly so).

And in deference to what we've learned on other threads, there are some PADI instructors quite capable of running very rigorous courses who can teach a sufficiently capable student to be very good, indeed. But you will not make them all do that.

Richard.

 

[j yaeger]

...a good diver is always learning...
we hear that and preach that.
not all recreational divers want to aspire to be a dive con,but still want to con ed
..and become better divers in the process
i love the mentorship and comeraderie that comes with the specialties
and the chances for divers to try out new things with professionals instead
of uncle moe who has been diving for years and "ain't been bent up bad yet"

as was said,there are a multitude of paths for" doing it right"
but i feel giving credit for someone who has taken the initiative to fulfill padi's msd rquirements is not a"wrong" thing
have fun
yaeg