SDI vs PADI

[Walter]

It's not ugly, merely a friendly discussion.

 

[Kingpatzer]

It doesn't matter what you or I want. The fact is divers make up far less than 5% of the population. More than 95% of the population is not diving regardless of the training available.

I was talking about the diving population -- but again I wasn't precise in my language. I guess I should start treating this board like a thesis committee

 

[RJP]

When it comes to recreational diving, they don't matter and what they'll teach is largely unnecessary.

Yeah, all that focus on dumb stuff like situational awareness, buoyancy control, proper trim, good communication with buddies, etc. Who needs THAT on a recreational dive!

 

[Kingpatzer]

Yeah, all that focus on dumb stuff like situational awareness, buoyancy control, proper trim, good communication with buddies, etc. Who needs THAT on a recreational dive!

Ok - again either lacking precision on my part or folks just looking for a fight, in either case -- what they teach that is in any way different from those agencies which actually have a market presence and are readily available to the greatest percentage of the public is immaterial to recreational diving.

 

[Thalassamania]

Nearly all US based agencies align their standards to ANSI Standard Z86.3 Minimum Course Content For Safe Scuba Diving as well as the standards created by the World Recreational Scuba Training Council -- which requires that all member organizations' standards include specific minimum skills. Both PADI and SDI are member organizations.

All this means that it is instructors and stores that matter, not agencies.

While that's real fancy talk, the reality behind it beggars your argument. What you fail to grasp is that the ANSI standard represents the lowest common denominator of all the member's individual standards, it's not a standart that agencies must rise to or maintain, rather it is a exemplar of the worst that all the agencies, collectively, have to offer.

Which agencies have the higher standards? PADI is all I know but I would be interested in switching to another agency if they expect more from their divers, and had a presence in my area.

There are two issues, first is who has, on a line by line comparison, higher standards. While there are surely others included on that list would be SEI, GUE, and NAUI. The second issue is which agencies permit an instructor to subscribe, personally, to a significantly higher standard. NAUI, for example, has a minimum standard only that must be met, there is no restriction on what may be added to the course, with some minor exceptions covering items like ascents.

My understanding is that the basic skills are pretty similar and any differences are going to be lost in the noise of good versus bad instructors.

In some cases yes, in many cases no.

As an aside they did research with counselors where they took counselors from one theoretical perspective and had them apply techniques from another theoretical perspective and they found that a good counselor was a good counsleor regardless of the counseling approach they applied and a bad counselor still sucked no matter what approach was used. I am sure the same thing could be said about dive instructors.

It's not a question of style. Poor instructor will not be improved by a more open ended set of standards, they may, in fact, be worse when not rigidly programmed and controlled. Good instructors will be good instructors under most all sets of circumstances, but will have a an opportunity to better serve theirs students' needs when they are not crushed into a one-size-fits all approach.

The only significant difference with SDI will be their tendency to teach the use of dive computers with less focus and reliance on dive tables as opposed to PADI which uses their own RDP very heavily and treats computer diving as a specialty course.

With PADI and SSI that may be the case, I don't know.

The "number of dives" issue is subect to abuse by specific instructors. I have known many instructors, regardless of agency, who will do "dive one" then float on the surface for 20 minutes before decending and doing "dive two". In practice this just gives the student 2 short dives in place of one longer one and results in dives where nothing is done beyond demonstration of basic skills. In the end, the diver gets half as much time in the water and only assmbles/dissembles the dive gear half as much on the checkout dives.

Which agency's instructors abuse which agencies rules is another topic entirely.

"Agencies" with next to no presence really aren't worth considering. And as far as I am aware, SEI is not part of the WRSTC, which pretty well doesn't answer the question.

NAUI isn't part of the RSTC either.

How is that misleading? In order to maintain membership in the WRSTC, member agencies must meet WRSTC training standards.

Wow ... really? That's so, so, hard to do. The WRSTC and RSTC are sham organizations whose only reason for existance is to be a smoke and mirror show and allow people to make the sort of deceitful argument you are advancing.

So you would rather see 95% of the population not scuba diving, than diving with training that international organizations have decided meet minimum requirements for safe diving?

Sorry, what is worth considering, in terms of training, is what is actually available.

I'm implying that those agencies which are readily available have similar standards.

Your implication demonstrates a severe lack of familiarity with other agencies.

Yeah, I'd be sure to steer clear of groups like GUE, UTD, NACD, NSS-CDS, etc that "have next to no presence" since what they'll teach you isn't really worth considering.

Let's not consider them, after all if they were any good they'd have a greater presence. Face it Rolls Royce and Ferrari can't possibley make good cars ... if they did they'd have more presence. The same goes for Chez Panisse, if the food were any good or where healthy, they'd be on every corner ... like McDonads.

When it comes to recreational diving, they don't matter and what they'll teach is largely unnecessary.

I don't need to have a PhD in English Literature to read Harry Potter books either.

Not to read Harry Potter, but to make sense of some of the most important literature in the Enlish language such as:
'Wepyng and waylyng, care and oother sorweI knowe ynogh, on even and a-morwe,'Quod the Marchant, 'and so doon oother moThat wedded been."
it might help to be able to read above the 8th grade level

Yeah, all that focus on dumb stuff like situational awareness, buoyancy control, proper trim, good communication with buddies, etc. Who needs THAT on a recreational dive!

No one, of course.

 

[boulderjohn]

OK, I am going to try to word this as objectively as I can.

Most divers learn to dive from agencies that follow the theory that recreational divers can be safe and effective divers in the basic kinds of diving situations encountered on most vacations. They theorize that divers who want to learn more than that can choose to get further training after that initial training. The advantage is that a diver can be certified to do the diving he or she is most likely to want to do without a major expenditure of time and money. Critics of these agencies contend that they have left out too much of what is needed. Of the agencies listed in this thread, I would include PADI, SDI, and SSI in this group.

Some agencies go beyond that and offer courses that teach more than those basic skills. In essence, they include skills that the first group includes in the optional follow-up classes. The advantage is that divers come out of that training with better skills. The disadvantage is that the courses take longer and generally cost more. Another disadvantage is that these agencies have fewer locations and are harder to find. Of the agencies listed in this thread, I would include SEI in this group.

A few agencies go well beyond that and teach very intense opening courses. Divers come out of those classes with excellent preparation. The disadvantage is even more time and cost. These agencies are also harder to find. Of the agencies listed in this thread, I would include GUE and UTD in this group.

Thus, students have clear choices as to how they are instructed. Within those categories, I believe the individual instructor is the key element.

 

[Doc]

Therefore, the best way to thwart a troll is to deny them the satisfaction of seeing things turn ugly. That is why no one is attempting to answer the question posed.

It's going well, so far.

 

[Thalassamania]

John's analysis is basically correct, there are some problems when you try to compare say PADI and NAUI because the NAUI progam may be identical to the PADI one in almost every detail or may be radically longer and more comprehensive.

What gives me heart burn is that the agencies don't admit to what John just clarified, in fact they (and their outlets) go through rather great pains to obfuscate the issue with discussions such as "it's the instructor not the agency" which is a blatant denial of the differences that John identified.

 

[simmonsjr]

It's going well, so far.

I would categorize that as weird rather than ugly. Keep up the good work!

 

[boulderjohn]

What gives me heart burn is that the agencies don't admit to what John just clarified, in fact they (and their outlets) go through rather great pains to obfuscate the issue with discussions such as "it's the instructor not the agency" which is a blatant denial of the differences that John identified.

Except that I did say that within the groups, the individual instructor is the key element. Most people who are trying to choose agencies are looking at only choices within the first group.