SDI vs PADI standards

[scywin]

I would appreciate the links. My point is that if accidents are declining under the present regime, then there is little need to change, while if accidents are climbing the change may argue for training of a particular type. Without real data, it is difficult to make a case either way.

To return to my flying example, the stats show that one of the primary causes of accidents is non-instrument rated pilots flying into conditions that require instrument skills. As a result, all pilots now receive at least a minimal amount of instrument training. This is the sort of thinking needed here.

 

[turnerjd]

I haven't found the links yet, but your example of flying is a good one.

Doing a PADI course in good (warm water) conditions is like being able to fly VFR.

The diving I do (Cold, Poor Vis, often <30m) is the diving equivalent of needing an IR.

My point is that the PADI OW is a basic certificate that gives people a false sense of security. There should be a seperate clasification for doing the type of diving that I and many other europeans do here, and I suspect a lot of people in the north of the USA do as well.

Like they have the different colour stickers to go on the card for the reviews done in different conditions, there should be differences between people trained in perfect conditions, and those that had to use a drysuit and deal with crap vis.

Part of the problem is that some divers haven't learn enought to realise that they don't know enought!

Jon T

 

[scywin]

I am located in NJ and have done most of my training locally, but dive for pleasure in the Caribbean. I understand exactly what you mean. The conditions and the training required are completely different.

However, my sense is that most divers understand this, and I do not hear of many accidents. If the stats say I am just unaware, then training might be the solution. If the stats show a low and declining accident rate, I would suggest the current training requirements are working well.

The thing I would avoid doing is imposing broad requirements based on a few anecdotes.

 

[DiverDave]

Jon,

You are very right that conditions you learn in are very important. But it can go in the reverse direction too.
I did my OW in the English Channel in the middle of winter. Next diving was AOW in Australia and it scared the living daylights out of me. 30+m of vis and some serious attacks of vertigo.

People should definately find out about new conditions in a controlled way with divers experienced in them.
The shop I teach for offers an introduction to UK diving weekend that covers SMBs, Drysuits, and bad vis.

 

[raffles]

I have read all the comments and for the most part I agree with everyone, however as a full time Instructor there are a couple of areas that I think are worth Highlighting.

I have worked in the recreational area now for over ten years and can say that 95% of the students that I have trained are not at all interested in Diving in the same way that we are. If the current training standards were changed to make it increasingly difficult to just dive occasionally, then the whole sport would see a downturn in popularity that would have a trickle down effect everywhere. Fewer dive shops, fewer Boats, less equipment at Higher prices etc.

The answer is not tightening up and imposing rules but in the Instuction of these students. I teach in the Carribean but I stress, as I was taught to, that Open Water is an "entry level cert" not a "you can dive anywhere cert." if the customer comes from Britain I try and get them an address to go to for further training if they want to dive in cold water. This is all stuff that was stressed on my IDC. It is also there in the PADI manuals. If people choose to ignore it then the next area to look at is on site supervision.

If accidents are happening with more frequency at Stoney Cove then something is wrong with their supervision or the accidents were unavoidable ones, which sometimes happens.

DM's, AI's and Instructors are all responsible for divers in their care, OW divers should not be diving without help in conditions outside their training and experience. Again this should be stressed during their training. At all levels of training looking out for others is or should be a strong theme. PADI allow the introduction of basic rescue skills at the OW level "time and conditions" permitting. Unfortunately some Instructors are unable to get around to it. There is plenty of time that can be used for additional "reinforcement" and fun games during SI's between dives and also in the pool so look to the Instructors for improvement

Raffles

 

[vr]

Originally posted by scywin
My point is that if accidents are declining under the present regime, then there is little need to change, while if accidents are climbing the change may argue for training of a particular type. Without real data, it is difficult to make a case either way.

The fallacy of that philosophy is that it presumes that the accident rate is the sole determination of the importance of training standards.

There are things the accident rate can't tell us, like all the near accidents, the dumbing down of dives that so many have noted. The climbing rate of divers in decompression chambers is a more revealing statistic than the accident rate.

Ask yourself (and for everyone reading this) what is the cause of the dumbing down of divers. Then look at declining standards in entry level training for the past quarter century, especially at the largest certification agency in the world, one that claims to certify 55% of divers worlwide and 70% in North America.

Coincidence? I don't think so. Try to discuss it objectively and most people will say "it's the instructor, not the agency". Clearly, that is an incomplete and inaccurate answer.

Now we have an agency, SDI, that is going lower than PADI. Mention the tables but teach with a dive computer. Divers don't need to think, all they need to do is come up when the light turns red on their computer. If they can perform skills in a swimming pool, there's no need to test them on a real dive, with fish, depth, currents and an openness lacking in a swimming pool.

The shift is that these new standards are easier for the instructor not better for the students, as has been true of many other PADI standards. Putting aside their marketing claims and propaganda about making it better for students and the industry, the truth can be found in their pursuit of money.

You only need to look at them allowing 10 year olds to be certified even though any medical evidence shows that this is a bad idea, to see the truth and their real motives.

 

[vr]

Originally posted by turnerjd

Part of the problem is that some divers haven't learned enough to realise that they don't know enough!
Jon T

True of many instructors also.

 

[Walter]

I'm very glad to see so many people advocating more education. There are some misunderstamdings. PADI does require some rescue training at the OW level both in the pool and in open water. This training is very limited and, IMHO, should be increased, but it is there. The other misunderstanding is equating all US agencies with PADI. Rescue requirements for NAUI and YMCA are more complete in the OW course.

As for increasing standards, it does not have to result in making it more difficult to become certified. It does require more time, but that time can be fun and it can be easy. The only people who won't benefit are those who teach a quick weekend class. In all honesty, I'd love to see those weekend classes disappear forever. They do a disservice to students tricked into taking them.

WWW™

 

[gjenks]

thank you for your great discussion, I really enjoy this board. I am taking classes to become a diver after a 25 year wait. I am taking these course through a SSI agency and the instuctor requires the table work as you all know but stongly suggest the use of a computor, with more training. This makes sense. Thank you.

 

[turnerjd]

Originally posted by scywin
My point is that if accidents are declining under the present regime, then there is little need to change, while if accidents are climbing the change may argue for training of a particular type. Without real data, it is difficult to make a case either way.

We don't just need to look at the numbers of accidents, it is also necessary to look at the type of diving being done. Over the last 5 years in europe, with the rise of PADI there has been a decrease in the ammount of decompression diving, but an increase in the number of chamber rides. This must say something.

Originally posted by vr
The fallacy of that philosophy is that it presumes that the accident rate is the sole determination of the importance of training standards.

There are things the accident rate can't tell us, like all the near accidents, the dumbing down of dives that so many have noted. The climbing rate of divers in decompression chambers is a more revealing statistic than the accident rate.

<snip>

Now we have an agency, SDI, that is going lower than PADI. Mention the tables but teach with a dive computer. Divers don't need to think, all they need to do is come up when the light turns red on their computer. If they can perform skills in a swimming pool, there's no need to test them on a real dive, with fish, depth, currents and an openness lacking in a swimming pool.

The shift is that these new standards are easier for the instructor not better for the students, as has been true of many other PADI standards. Putting aside their marketing claims and propaganda about making it better for students and the industry, the truth can be found in their pursuit of money.

You only need to look at them allowing 10 year olds to be certified even though any medical evidence shows that this is a bad idea, to see the truth and their real motives.

From what I have heared about SDI I am starting to get seriously worried that if it starts teaching anywhere other than nice warm tropical water, there will be an even greater rise in accidents.

We all know that diving is potentially dangerous, but everyone here is taking the time to learn more. If you give some-one a computer and tell them to follow it blindly, they are lacking any real idea as to what is going on with decompression theory, and what the computers numbers and controlls mean.

Teaching diving properly has never been a particularly economic proposition I suspect. In order to make it more economic, agencys like PADI have had to remove a lot of the instructor load so that they can get a suitable course duration : cost ratio. ie, to make enough money the course has to last a certain maxiumum time, so that the next class can then be put through their course.

I noticed in the PADI instructor manual, that the recommended minimum course duration is 31 hours. The only way round this is to use the CD-ROM for 'home study' so that the instructor load is much less. They then use some exceptionally questionable educational theory to support this 'home study'. If 'home study' as they now recomend with the CD-ROM was so good, why don't all the universities put all their courses on CD-ROM and get the students to sit at home all day on their computer, hell it would make their lives far easier if they didn't have to deal with the students wouldn't it?

I have spoken to many PADI DM's and above, and they all know the standard PADI lines. It is a bit like in the old communist Russia. Even if you didn't believe, all you had to do was repeat the party line like a good model citizen, and you were relatively safe. There is a culture within places like PADI of repeat the party line and you will be fine. There is no culture of questioning why the PADI answer is correct, and a lot of the time, their reasons are more spin than substance.

As for getting 10 year olds diving, there is not much I can say. The last PADI propaganda (ie the Undersea journal) was almost dedicated to getting youngsters to dive. Their comercial reasons for this are barely hidden. Why encourage youngsters, unless the aim is to get their parents in spending big ammounts of money on them, everybody knows how difficult it can be to say no when kids really want something. The rate at which kids grow, they represent a big moneymaking potential as they will have to have new suits, BCD's etc... as they grow. This is just a little bit too far on the money grubbing side for me.

I say that we need to seriously think about how our sport is progressing, and how we would like it to progress in the future. If necessary, do something about it.

Jon T