Taking an open water student below 60 ft?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

It's nice to see an instructor invoke the " loved ones " principle. I've always thought of it more as the last thing I want to do is to have to explain what happened to their loved ones, but your description makes better sense of it. It's interesting to see the well founded continuing complaints of " Zero to Hero" "Divemaster in a Week", "Instructor in Two Weeks" and then the criticisms of a much more rigorous program. The PADI OW course we took in 1989 lasted for 4 weeks with redundant drills every session. I remember asking our instructor why we were doing mask clearing, mask removal, buddy breathing, etc. so much. And he made the comment that you have to do something 27 times before you have it in your long term memory, or some large number like that. Our last check out dive was on the wall at Guantanamo Bay, our instructor took the five of us to 100 ft. One hard rule was no one could go below the instructor on the dive. Things have changed since the late 80's and I've considered it to be responsive to the "wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am" training and economic incentive for increased training programs. Sad to see that, but humans are involved. And even more sad to see someone with good principles and trying to do the right thing, suffer with undue criticism. It's nice to see someone with good experience willing to go the extra mile for proper training and to have the assessment skills to reward those properly skilled. More instructors like that are needed.
 
It's nice to see an instructor invoke the " loved ones " principle. I've always thought of it more as the last thing I want to do is to have to explain what happened to their loved ones, but your description makes better sense of it. It's interesting to see the well founded continuing complaints of " Zero to Hero" "Divemaster in a Week", "Instructor in Two Weeks" and then the criticisms of a much more rigorous program. The PADI OW course we took in 1989 lasted for 4 weeks with redundant drills every session. I remember asking our instructor why we were doing mask clearing, mask removal, buddy breathing, etc. so much. And he made the comment that you have to do something 27 times before you have it in your long term memory, or some large number like that. Our last check out dive was on the wall at Guantanamo Bay, our instructor took the five of us to 100 ft. One hard rule was no one could go below the instructor on the dive. Things have changed since the late 80's and I've considered it to be responsive to the "wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am" training and economic incentive for increased training programs. Sad to see that, but humans are involved. And even more sad to see someone with good principles and trying to do the right thing, suffer with undue criticism. It's nice to see someone with good experience willing to go the extra mile for proper training and to have the assessment skills to reward those properly skilled. More instructors like that are needed.
Yes indeed. I've got a collection of cards that probably denote "OW diver in 1975". It is too bad Jim's OW course is a rarity today.
 
And now with say 24 hours and less you get the same card OW and you have learned next to nothing as compared to what the original content was. Why so they can sell more classes under different names. with no consumer benificial additional environment advantage to taking further training. More or less it is either basic OW or tech. And to do tech you are made to buy more classes to get there because of what you don't know and was never taught in the 24 hour OW class..

But new divers are not required to take the additional classes. Your point would be valid if the agencies required several classes to become certified, so students were required to take those classes to achieve the same certification from the old days (that you allude to.) But new divers are not required to take those extra classes. In fact, most students take only the first basic OW class.

Do they learn as much in their OW course as you did in the "old days"? Probably not. But... do they need to learn everything that you did?

Probably not.

So why did the cert agencies change? Because over the years they learned that people don't need everything that's included in the old OW course (i.e. up to divemaster training) just to go diving. The purpose of the change was not to sell more classes (because they don't really... the majority of divers take only the OW class. And yeah, I know I already said that above.) It was to get more people diving. So the modern OW course was designed to just give people what they need to know to be able to just go diving.

For example, in your old OW course you might have learned some rescue techniques. Why don't they teach that in the modern OW course? It's not necessary. Certainly rescue skills can be useful... but knowing how to rescue someone is not truly necessary to be a scuba diver. Case in point: I took the Rescue class many years ago. And I took the DM course, in which we repeated the skills from the Rescue course. And then I did the IDC... in which we repeated the skills from the Rescue course. By the time I became an instructor, my CD decided I was good enough at rescuing people to teach people how to rescue people.

And in all my years of diving I have rescued... zero people. (Oh wait, important clarification: I have had zero opportunity to rescue people.)

Did the Rescue training make me a better diver? Absolutely. It taught me skills that can be useful, skills that perhaps allow me to recognize how to prevent a situation that could create a "rescue opportunity".

But the simple fact is that the current OW course provides the knowledge and skills a new diver needs on which to build their experience to become a safe and competent diver.

There is a reason that training curriculum evolves. There is also a reason people that did things the "old way" will continue to complain that the "old way" is better and the "new way" is worse. What will not change is that the most important elements of any training are how dedicated the instructor is to the quality of their instruction, and how dedicated the student is to understanding and applying the training properly.
 
And now with say 24 hours and less you get the same card OW and you have learned next to nothing as compared to what the original content was. Why so they can sell more classes under different names. with no consumer benificial additional environment advantage to taking further training. More or less it is either basic OW or tech. And to do tech you are made to buy more classes to get there because of what you don't know and was never taught in the 24 hour OW class.
.

Not sure where you're seeing a "24 hour or less" OW course. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I've never seen one. And if it does exist, it's a clear violation of PADI standards.

To be honest, it sounds like something you're just making up to try to support your argument. I'm not say that's what it is... but it sure sounds like it.
 
I remember when I first signed up for a standard 2 weekend OW course. An acquaintance mentioned he'd taken a monthlong diving course many years ago and then lost interest. I couldn't wrap my head around spending a whole month just learning how to dive. I probably wouldn't have signed up for that. By now I've probably had close to that much instruction (and more dives in the last year than I probably expected to do in a lifetime) and I'm looking forward to spending my whole summer on another course.

A higher bar for entry might improve retention rates by keeping out the riffraff who just want a taste. But some of us riffraffers might surprise you and come back for seconds.

Yessss... a higher bar for entry just means only those most likely to stay will start in the first place. Which is great if all you care about is "retention rate".

But if having enough divers to support an industry (selling scuba gear, dive related travel, etc) is important, then certainly attracting 500 new divers and a retention rate of 20% is much better than 10 new divers and a 100% retention rate.
 
Maybe I'm missing something... but are there a significant number of scuba related incidents that are a direct result of insufficient training?

I watch the A&I form regularly, and it seems that most accidents from around the world are reported in that forum, but it doesn't seem many of them are due to new divers with a lack of proper training.

Seriously... has anyone kept stats on "incidents/accidents with experienced divers" vs "incidents/accidents with improperly trained new divers"?
 
And of course, one cannot have this discussion without observing those most in support of this hodge podge of redundant and superfluous courses are those with a vested interest in the system. While those who seen to think entry level courses should be more thorough tend to be more experienced divers with little or no financial stake in it. Not to question the integrity of anyone involved , but it is a valid consideration.
 
Maybe I'm missing something... but are there a significant number of scuba related incidents that are a direct result of insufficient training?

I watch the A&I form regularly, and it seems that most accidents from around the world are reported in that forum, but it doesn't seem many of them are due to new divers with a lack of proper training.

Seriously... has anyone kept stats on "incidents/accidents with experienced divers" vs "incidents/accidents with improperly trained new divers"?
Yes and that's why so many are concerned. Here is a graph of fatalities by level of training from 2016. Students are disproportionately represented.
Diving Fatalities by Training.PNG
 
Yes and that's why so many are concerned. Here is a graph of fatalities by level of training from 2016. Students are disproportionately represented. View attachment 555327
What is the source of the graph? I think I know, but the point is that all by itself is meaningless, it has no validity without its source.

But it is not really what was asked....the students are not yet trained, certified divers, so shouldn't even be on the graph.

And the graph -- without the irrelevant students -- seems to say the lowest certification level (OW) has the fewest problems.

But you can't really conclude anything from the graph because it is not normalized: interpretation requires knowing how many divers of each certification level.
 
Yes and that's why so many are concerned. Here is a graph of fatalities by level of training from 2016. Students are disproportionately represented.

I'm glad that someone else looked at the DAN annual reports other than me - and to go a few years farther back would have graphs somewhat similar to the 2016 graph. Keep in mind this only shows fatalities (not accidents) where certifications were known, as there were a much higher number of fatalities than the 23 shown in the graph. It might be interpreted that there are fewer students and OW divers who had fatalities than those divers who were trained beyond the OW level (granted we don't know what type of students - only that they were students.)

Considering other factors, there may be other interpretations!
 

Back
Top Bottom