SDI vs PADI standards

[raffles]

Jon T

A little one sided on the organisation bashing, ALL the agencies world wide that are in the "business" of providing divng certification have revised there standards "downwards" over the last 10 years, making the oceans more accessible to more people.

This has lead to a change in attitudes to ocean conservation that just wasn't present amongst the "old guard" purists.

All divers have a responsibility to themselves and others to ensure that they don't attempt things they have not been trained to do or understand as do Instructors, Professionals and SENIOR DIVERS to ensure that people with less experience get the experience they need in a safe well organised manner.

Thanks. Raffles.

 

[Walter]

ALL agencies have not lowered their standards.

WWW™

 

[greg somers]

When I did the naui basic scuba in '85 it was an excellent and challenging course.I just recently completed a dive leadership course with naui again and it involved taking non divers thru the basic OW again and there was definately about 20 - 25 % less material and teaching requirements,particularly in the theory and practical assessment and this was thru the same shop I did my original course with.Comparing my old material which I still have and the new course material,I have definately seen a difference.Even the course providers admit that there has been a level of 'dumbing down' for an increase of numbers into the sport.It would appear that other agencies have aswell,including Padi where some of my courses done with them are now much more lenient in standards.I have to agree with raff on this one.Peace love and mong beans babezzz....Gasman.

 

[turnerjd]

Originally posted by raffles
ALL the agencies world wide that are in the "business" of providing divng certification have revised there standards "downwards" over the last 10 years, making the oceans more accessible to more people.

Not from where I sit. FFESSM in france, and BSAC in the UK haven't dumbed down yet, and I hope they never do.

Jon T

 

[friscuba]

Hi there,

I'm an instructor with both agencies. From what I can see there isn't a huge amount of differences between the two in skill requirements to become certified. SDI has taken to computer instruction vs. the tables, but does require some table history be taught and most instructors I know are basically doing the normal table training anyway.

Now for a few opinions on a couple of comments I've noticed in this thread.

re: certification acceptance- A year or two ago many operators weren't familiar with SDI. Now most are. At DEMA this year the SDI/TDI booth was very busy, nowhere near as busy or as sizable as PADI's booth, but more noticeably busy than some of the other major organizations. My suspicion is that any op not recognizing SDI's certs is either ill informed or has their nose up in the air.

re: tables not being taught- I work on a dive boat in Hawaii and I suspect it is a safe bet that more than 80% of the certified divers on the boat couldn't figure out their pressure group letter at the end of the 2nd dive, no matter what agency they trained with. In most cases the one's who can are DM's or above or just recently certified. You'll probably be seeing more agencies going pretty much to computer training in the next few years.

That being said, don't give up on your PADI instructorship just yet. PADI has much bigger name recognition and you will find far more non divers interested in it's programs because of that. Also SDI is making the switch to instruction at authorized SDI diveshops and you won't be able to teach independantly without being affiliated with a SDI shop. Apparently you are still able to teach TDI classes independantly at this time, if you are interested in technical programs.

Both agencies have their positives and it is up to the instructor to follow established guidelines and not scrimp on the training so as to produce good divers.

later

Steve

 

[Bob]

Great, Just what the dive community needs, a training agency that throws a dive computer at a OW student and says keep it in the green! What a swell idea. I'm sure that when those same students are on a dive and their DC battery fails, they will end the dive and dive no more. Or when suiting up the diver finds that he's left his DC at home, I'm sure he won't even think about diving that day will he? Since dive tables aren't as important as a DC to SDI, I wonder will SDI divers be required to have a timepiece? They have a dive computer you know! Is it any wonder that we all see new divers diving irresponsibly and taking risks that shouldn't be taken? The bottom line, more training, instead of less.
Bob

 

[tomcat]

Wait a minute? Are timespieces on the required equipment list? Just kidding Bob.

Personally I think there are always two sides to a coin and opposing forces to every tension. In this case, economics vs safety. As diving becomes popular and accessible, it will attract new entrants into the industry who will continually lower prices and possibly standards in order to compete.

For standards to remain at an "acceptable" level, the only way in which to do so IMHO, would be like how any industry is regulated. Some government body (with influence on the legal system) with absolutely no commercial interest in the industry, should be the absolute authority on standards.

Not-for-profit organisations may argue that they do not have "commercial" interests per se. I agree to some extent but not-for-profit is not the same as not-for-revenue. These organisations need to sustain themselves in order to continue operating and that means attracting customers, in competition with all other companies in the same industry.

Until there is a truly neutral authority on diving standards and safety, one agency's word is as good as another's to the average holiday maker who takes up an OW course over the weekend.

If there are divers in this forum who are in a position to influence the creation of such a body and care enough to do so, that may be the only chance for diving education to be adequate for everyone.

tomcat

 

[turnerjd]

Tomcat,

Legal regulation is not a nice way to go. If you have regulations, there are always people doing the absolute minimum necessary, without being ilegal.

It was suggested in one of the other threads that we try and sort out a new agency, one that is comercially orientated, but including major differences like compulsory 'mentoring' or having new divers with 'L plates'.

Providing the industry with a comercial alternative, where the industry is forcing the standards higher, rather than relying on government intervention is surely a better method of improving standards. If everyone hear puts in their ideas as to what they would like to see change in diver training, we can come up with something good.

Jon T

 

[tomcat]

turnerjd

you have a point there and in a perfect world, i woiuld agree with you.

but how would this new agency be able to enforce its standards on the other agencies? PADI is currently the king of the hill and it is going to take substanstial pressure to get them to budge.

ultimately, consumers choose who they want to go to. more stringent standards typically mean more work and there will be many occasions when neither instructors nor trainess will appreciate the benefits of these higher standards and stick with good ol padi, naui, sdi and what have you.

therefore, i don't see how the creation of a new agency will make diving education more robust in general, across all certification agencies. i'm sure i must have missed out some other parts of the argument though.

tomcat

 

[Bob]

Hi Tomcat,
I think that you and I are in agreement on this discussion. I'm not "agency elitist", like some people are. I don't necessarily think that one training agency is better or worse than the other. I'm a PADI diver, and sure, I see things that PADI could do better.
I've said that to say this. I'm a flight instructor, single and multi engine. When I feel a student pilot is ready to go for his check ride, I make a appointment with a FAA examiner or FAA designated examiner. The test is two fold, ground and flight skills. If the student pilot completes these tests satisfactorily, he becomes a pilot.
Wouldn't it be better to have a impartial dive examiner test students to make sure they have been taught the proper skills and that they are able to successfully demonstrate those same skills? If the student is found to be competent, the examiner would then issue a temporary card. Makes sense to me. Of course it would add to the overall cost, but what are we most worried about, producing competent divers or a inexpensive product?
Bob