SDI vs PADI standards

[The Chairman]

Hey Walter,

Now I have only taken the PADI OW course, so what is presented in the NAUI/YMCA that is left out in the PADI course. I know they only cover "self rescue" in the PADI OW course, but I felt pretty at ease in the water after I finished the PADI OW course.

Pete in Orlando...

 

[Walter]

Pete,

You can check out the differences between those 3 agencies at http://diverlink.com/newdiver/agencycomparison.htm

It includes an objective comparison and my subjective comments.

WWW™

 

[The Chairman]

Thanks Walter,

Overall, it was fairly revealing, although I think there were a few things left out that PADI does cover. They do cover the different types of barotrauma, and a few other things (like veritgo) as well. How well they cover these items MAY be your point, which is well taken. As an OW student it seemed that I had a much firmer grasp on these issues than my instructor. Even whith the gas laws, I taught both my OW instructor and my Divemaster instructor the basics of STP (standard temperature and pressure)and how they related to gases and diving. I found my PADI Nitrox course VERY elementary in this respect, and was surprised that more pure science was not taught. Understanding the underlying roots help not only to understand WHY we do things, but also to assist in problem solving in and out of the water.

Would there possibly any statistics that show one agency or the other to be safer? It would have to be weighted to what percentage of the diving population has been certified by each particular agency. Still, that would shed incontrovertible evidence as to which agency is best.

Pete from Orlando

 

[Walter]

...............compare individual courses, merely what the agency requires. While your instructor covered the gas laws (and many other instructors do as well) PADI does not require it in their standards.

WWW™

 

[The Chairman]

Hey Walter & All,

I guess the reading doesn't count then? If I remember, one of the first things they alert you to was always breathing and why... what barotrauma was and how to avoid it. They covered the gas laws without naming them, and they covered their implications (which is the important part). All this was from the reading, as my instructor was pretty lax about the class room. In fact he was WAY too lax. Now, I would agree that they did not NAME the laws or even the injuries until we got into Rescue Diver and then Dive Master.

Pete from Orlando...

 

[vr]

Originally posted by NetDoc
Would there possibly any statistics that show one agency or the other to be safer? It would have to be weighted to what percentage of the diving population has been certified by each particular agency. Still, that would shed incontrovertible evidence as to which agency is best.

Pete from Orlando [/B]

Not true, Pete. While a disparity is accident rates by agency would indicate potential problems in an agency's curriculum, the absence of a disparity cannot be used to show that one agency is better than another. There are too many things not measured or indicated by the accident rate. Read the info at http://diverlink.com/newdiver/whichagency.htm , especially the part under "What studies don't measure" for details.

Besides, there is more to a good course than not getting killed or injured afterwards. I happen to agree that more information is better than less, and preparing students for a wide range of conditions is better than not teaching them things that might scare them. In fact, they should be scared a bit. Fear is healthy, it is part of our self-preservation defense mechanism. The best way to overcome fear is through knowledge. It is a lack of knowledge that can cause fear, and does with many student divers who take the "teach 'em as little as necessary so they won't kill themselves" courses taught by PADI and others.

 

[Maggie]

I think that too much is spoken of in relation to one agency versus another. We all know that you can get two divers who go through exactly the same course, one will learn just enough, the other will learn as much as he can and will be enthusiastic about continuing his education and widening his experience. I agree however that Padi amongst others dont require enough of open water divers and I think the rule that allows two newly "qualified" open water divers to jump in the sea together without supervision is ludicrous in the extreme.

 

[The Chairman]

Hey All,

Interesting discussion here, and it has made me re-think my motivation to want to become an instructor or not. I agree that there are many, many factors that arise in whether there are accidents or not, and that the certifying agency may or may not be responsible for that.

However, to say that an agency is responsible only for bad figures and not for good ones, does a dis-service to any plausible paradigms. Pergamentum inuit, exit pergamentum... (garbage in, garbage out). Again, I would like to view accidents by agency, with the various factors weighed in. I could then draw my own conclusions. They may not be YOUR conclusions, but then you are not responsible for me... I am. I need to be satisfied with how I dive and with how I will teach (upon completion of an IDC, of course).

So, the gist of what I have learned from this, is that there is much error in what people think that the different agencies teach. The instructor really makes the difference in what you are able to learn. And that the student is responsible to really learn it since it IS their butt in the water. I know for a fact that I have seen a PADI instructor NOT sign a cert card because a student could not do all of the required skills. He (and I) were patient, and we will be letting him take the entire class again, gratis. But, he could not do the skills, so he don't get the card.

Pete from Orlando...

 

[tomcat]

I have just completed a rescue diving course with Padi and it took less than 4 dives to finish, without any pool sessions beforehand.

The first inclination that anybody would have is that I didn't learn enough. Perhaps and thinking back on it, it is quite possible that I would have benefitted from more practice.

However, the argument that has been going on here in this thread seems to revolve around educational philosophies of whether students can absorb and handle the amount of information that instructors throw at them. It is the typical school teacher's quandary of whether they should teach to the brightest or the dumbest. Unless you are in a class of 1 or 2, there is no way that an instructor can easily identify who can absorb more info and treat those students differently.

With my rescue diving course, I found that if you are a relatively coordinated person with fairly good swimming skills and stamina, pool sessions are likely to be unnecessary. However, I am sure the lack of pool sessions alone would cause many of the members here to jump straight to the conclusion that not enough time was spent on instruction and/or practice.

Until we can agree on how much is enough for certification (saying that it is never enough is avoiding the question because then the course would never end), the argument will go on and on. If you want to beat a dog, you can always find a stick. Perhaps we should stick to typical cases. The amount of instruction should be such that the typical diver in a typical range of situations would be able to comfortably handle them.

Then again, even such a definition is open to more argument and debate. :Þ

tomcat

 

[The Chairman]

Hey man,

I remember my rescue diver course well, and if it was anything like mine, then those were long, hard and arduous dives. If I have to blow bubbles on my arm ONE MORE TIME... (grin). We did one pool dive, but only because one of the students could not get it right. The rest of us were invited by the student to come support him. He fiannly made it, and is a better diver for it.

Pete from Orlando...